Tag Archives: amherstburg

Mayor Prue’s Inaugural Speech RE Concession 6 and 8

Posted on by

Residents on 6th Concession N have resorted to a petition at change.org that states, in part, “Despite these significant challenges, the town council continues to prioritize excessive spending on festivals and parks within the town, disregarding the fundamental need to maintain basic infrastructure on the amalgamated portions of the township, like 6th Concession N. They claim they have no money and the road isn’t slated for reconstruction for 6 years!” 

Listen to Mayor Prue address the concession conditions; unofficial transcript below.

If you walk along the concession roads, people will tell you look at this lousy road especially six and eight. I walked up and down every one of those roads to every one of those houses. Not me individually, but with Nolan and some of the team who are here tonight. We walked through all of those streets and they are in pretty sad shape. And I promised them that we will give the same opportunities to the people who live in the concessions as we do to the downtown and that we will start rebuilding their roads as soon as practicable.

Why hasn’t it been practicable? Money has been spent on pickleball, walking trails in parks, new town vehicles and a list of wants.

RECAP Accessibility Committee Meeting August 28, 2025

Posted on by

The meeting started a few minutes late. Chair Shirley Prue called the meeting to order and asked for a minute of silence ‘to commemorate a member of our committee who is no longer with us, who passed recently.’

Before the silence ended, Mayor Michael Prue walked in, waited, and then spoke to his wife from across the room. So, technically, isn’t the mayor out of order? I can’t imagine that behaviour being tolerated at a council meeting.

For whatever reason Shirley Prue asked the clerk to do the roll call; she usually asks the clerk to do the land acknowledgement also but this time she read it.

On to pecuniary interest where a discussion was held because of Tony Pietrangelo’s wish to abstain from item 6.1 site plan review since he used to own that property at one time (McDonald’s). Shirley Prue thought he didn’t have a conflict. Councillor McArthur just wanted to acknowledge, regarding item 6.4 the fest-for-all progress update, that he works for the organizer, County of Essex, in communications and would promote the event on social media. 

Site Plan Review for 151 Sandwich Street South

  • Ms. Prue thought Heidi Ballairgeon was there to talk about this but she said no, she didn’t have this one.
  • The clerk explains the site plan changes for the McDonald’s restaurant, including a two-lane drive-through and expanded rear building area.
  • He said he reviewed the site and didn’t have any particular recommendations beyond what has been provided but of course, it is provided to the committee for any recommendations they may have. (yes, admin has a chance during iits own site plan review process).
  • Following clarification that there will be two order lanes that will merge, the committee receives the site plan without any specific recommendations.

Kings Navy Yard Park Extension Phase 1B

  • Now it was Heidi Baillargeon’s turn to present; her audio kept cutting out.
  • the Kings Navy Yard Park extension phase 1B focused on stabilizing the break wall and addressing accessible walkways that come from Dalhousie Street into the site
  • doing a site remediation by taking contaminated soil out and disposing of it and putting all the underground site servicing and things that most people won’t generally see, but cost a lot of money, so all the servicing for future electrical requirements for the site, future sanitary storm connections, all your hydro, water, gas.
  • Christine Easterbrook asked what was at the very top of that half circle; it looks like there’s steps up to it.
  • Baillargeon said yes, there’s a transition area with a gradual ramp so you can either choose to go down a series of stairs in the middle or you can follow the ramp down the left or the right.
  • Tents could be placed on either side and food trucks could locate around the semi-circle.
  • Pietrangelo asks, how close is the closest accessible parking spot?
  • Baillargeon says the closest accessible parking spot, I believe there is one right on Dalhousie Street, just down in front of flow cafe I think it is. So when Dalhousie gets reconstructed, we are planning on basically taking where the property line is and bumping that into have angled parking all the way along the roadway, so that, you know, we can provide parking for the site, but it’s not part of this project at this point. We don’t have the money to do that right now.
  • Pietrangelo asks Baillargeon, what are you looking for from us to do with this, with your presentation, what do you need from us? (After all the years on this committee, why members are still asking what is being sought from it is odd).
  • Baillargeon says, I’m bringing it to the committee to let you know that we have accommodated and made accommodations for accessibility in the complete transition from Dalhousie Street to the waterfront. (No, universal access would allow for one ramp, not a ramp on either side of a set of stairs like the tourist booth on the highway. Segregated means of access is far less desirable).
  • Councillor McArthur asks, what is right in the centre?
  • Baillargeon says that is supposed to be a future feature. We’ve had some discussions with the Indigenous community in terms of maybe making that part of the three fires Confederacy. 
  • McArthur asks a follow up, benches are there accessible benches throughout the park? (shocking, since I have criticized McArthur for volunteering on this committee and not being a stronger champion for people with disabilities). 
  • Baillargeon says there will be accessible benches throughout the park. There will be the black ribbon style benches that will be going in this section, and they will be located kind of along the pathways closest to the riverfront.
  • McArthur then asks what about fishing in this part of the park?
  • Baillargeon says I think the fishing would be accommodated. 

H Murray Smith, Centennial Park Revised Concept

  • Baillargeon presents the revised concept plan for H Murray Smith, Centennial Park
  • The plan includes a walkway connecting the seniors Active Living Center and accessible parking near tennis and multi-use courts.
  • The committee discusses the need for crosswalks and traffic calming measures along Richmond Street.
  • The clerk mentioned the benches are conceptual in this drawing, because we have to do consultation on those elements. (yes, how many times have I requested meaningful consultations?!) 
  • He said we would want to consult specifically on how far to place those benches so that people could find the rest areas they needed along the route. So all of that would come when we get to building these elements.
  • Easterbrook asks, it’s supposed to be, every what is it? 200 metres and Baillargeon agrees and says we have more than every 200 metres within the plan.
  • Ms. Prue asks, and of course, my favorite question is, where are the washrooms?
  • Baillargeon says the washrooms are located in the Seniors Active Living Center just off the back of that building. 
  • Chris Drew asks are there any designated pickleball courts? 
  • Baillargeon says pickleball is at the Libro. 
  • Pietrangelo asks if the speed limit is still 50 kilometers an hour through Richmond Street. He thought maybe they should lower it. 
  • The clerk said it is a lowered speed limit.

Fest for All Event Update

  • The clerk noted he sees Ron in the room and said so I’m hoping he’s taking some diligent notes. I’ve seen some coverage there in the paper, and hoping we keep seeing that coverage as well, because this is an event we’re really looking forward to.
  • It’s the County of Essex running the fest for all but we have been sort of given the nod to be the host community for this. (the town offered to host it this year).
  • Scheduled for September 12, highlighting possible 50 vendors that showcase services, supports and products for persons with a disability and promote accessibility in the community.
  • The town will have a tent set up and partners doing demonstrations like the miracle league and the ice bullets, the sledge hockey team.
  • Clerk notes, I think that there’s a chance that what we may be best at is showcasing what it is that our site has to offer in terms of built amenities. Obviously, the miracle league itself is a crowning jewel for things to have in a community, for persons with disabilities. You do have that inclusive play structure and that wheelchair swing that’s included there, that are not things that you often see in in many communities.
  • Clerk says we’re going to have our comms team there promoting the town and the services and offerings that it has and the supports that it offers. (That should be interesting).
  • Possible Protesters
  • Chris Drew says I know there’s a lot of interest in it. I’ve got a lot of people that’s been asking me different questions about what happened last year in Colchester, and people are asking what the date is and stuff like that. The only thing is, I’m hearing rumbles that there may be some protesters there, and I hope it don’t happen,
  • Ms. Prue asked, protesting what?
  • Drew says protesting about what goes on in the town with the AODA. 
  • Ms. Prue laughs and then says I’ll be intrigued to hear that.
  • The clerk says for this event the focus is on supports for people with disabilities and, you know, equality in the community is an important message to take home. 

Unfinished Business and Future Plans

  • Pietrangelo raises concerns about the unfinished sidewalk on Pickering and requests a motion to complete it.
  • The clerk says the work is pending some site activities.
  • Ms. Prue asks like what? 
  • The clerk says I’m not at liberty to discuss the development and will find out a timeline.
  • Pietrangelo says we had the flag raising in Essex, I sent an email out to everybody about the Amherstburg flag raising for accessibility. I never got an answer back. So my question is, did we have a flag raising in Amherstburg for accessibility this year? (No, they didn’t).
  • The clerk says I believe we did.
  • Pietrangelo says I don’t know why we didn’t do that this year here in Amherstburg. We should have done it. We should not have left it just Essex County, because Essex County is fine but I think Amherstburg is Amherstburg. (I’m guessing no motion was made to raise a flag in Amherstburg this year).
  • The committee discusses the need for a flag-raising event for National Accessibility Week and the importance of involving schools and whether it should be held at the Libro or town hall.
  • Ms. Prue says last year there was a little bit of awkwardness, I think, in terms of accessibility, even for the patio area of the town hall, there was a couple of hiccups.
  • Easterbrook mentions another opportunity – December 3, which is International Day of Persons with Disabilities. 
  • Pietrangelo asks if he should make a motion or if the clerk can draw one up to have a flag raising every year because if we’re going out of our way to even go with aphasia, you know, we’re really into this, we have to let the people know. I don’t know if Essex County is aware of that. We are the only town that has an Aphasia program going on; that’s important.

New Business Accessible Parking and Streetscape Improvements

  • The clerk says we will be looking at our multi-year Accessibility Plan and notes the Ministry of Seniors and Accessibility has changed grant funding; they require projects be part of the defined plan of the town of the Amherstburg. We know that we have grandfathered structures in the town that are not required to comply with the current provisions. You know, laws get better every year, and sometimes our buildings are not renewed for a number of years. 
  • Easterbrook asked about the little covered bus stop things that we had talked about. The short answer is that they’re not bus shelters.
  • The clerk mentions a review of accessible parking in downtown core and plans to bring back a report for improvements and to do the consultation that’s required. (insert often repeated phrase of requesting meaningful consultation).
  • The clerk says they received a request from a resident that we do have to consider and will bring that to the next meeting.

Amherstburg Resident On Windsor Police Service Board

Posted on by

David Hammond, of Amherstburg, is a provincial appointee to the Windsor Police Service Board as of January 16, 2025 and will serve until January 15, 2027.

Mayor Prue might not be happy that his role is to be an Advisor on the Windsor Police Service Board, without a vote, but the terms of the contract were known when town council renewed the contract on February 8, 2023.

I reached out to Mayor Dilkens, who responded by email:

The City of Windsor has a contract to provide policing to the Town of Amherstburg.  Windsor City Council was agreeable to providing their one seat to the Mayor of Amherstburg for the first term of the agreement.  After the first term, the contract specifically allows City Council to choose any other member of the public.  The contract also provides that if the mayor of Amherstburg is not selected, then the mayor can sit as a non-voting advisor to the Board, which Mayor Prue has done since assuming his office.  The City of Windsor is simply a service provider to Amherstburg.  We aren’t jointly governing the Windsor Police Service.  David Hammond is a provincial appointee to the Windsor Police Service Board.  The City has no control over who the Province of Ontario appoints as their representatives.  The City of Windsor can only appoint a single public member to the Board.  The remaining appointments controlled by City Council must be members of Windsor city council. 

The initial Agreement between the Town of Amherstburg and the City of Windsor, signed on October 12, 2018 stipulated:

The following shall determine the role of the Town with respect to the Board:

14. l (a) The City shall appoint the Mayor or his or her designate to the Board for the remaining term of Council until November 14, 2022, starting with the commencement of this Agreement on January 1, 2019.

(b) The City may consider the appointment of the Mayor or his or her designate for subsequent terms of Council provided that the City is providing police services to the Town.

(c) If at any time during the Initial Term or any Renewal Term, the Mayor or his or her designate is not appointed to the Board, the City agrees to allow the Mayor or his or her designate to become an advisor to the Board, as contemplated by the Act with the full ability to attend all meetings of the Board.

For further clarification regarding 14.1 (c), ‘all meetings of the Board’ shall include in-camera meetings and the advisor shall also receive all reports and correspondence as a full member of the Board would receive, subject to the advisor signing a confidentiality and non-disclosure agreement.

Town Withdraws Frivolous Or Vexatious Allegations

Posted on by

Another Freedom of Information request to the town of Amherstburg has led to an appeal that is in its final stage.

The town issued a reply response that included the following concluding paragraph.

“Frivolous and Vexatious To my understanding, the Town has never submitted a claim of frivolous or vexatious behaviour on behalf of an appellant through the IPC appeals process, prior to this appeal. This was not lightly considered, as the Town has withheld filing such a claim on previous appeals, such as the last appeal by the appellant wherein they appealed a mandatory time exemption, even after having already received a final response letter. In any event, the Town is willing to forego exploring this matter at this time and will withdraw its statements with regards to frivolous or vexatious behaviour on this file.”

Thank you,
Kevin Fox

Consultation On Policing Missing

Posted on by

Re RTT article, Town to move on from Windsor police, will explore remaining policing options

It was deeply alarming to read mayor Prue’s statement, ‘we didn’t even ask the price’ and the only question was about a voice and vote on the board, which Amherstburg has with a provincial appointee.

The contract conditions were well known during the proposal and during subsequent renewals.

When council initially decided in favour of Windsor Police it committed that, prior to a renewal decision, it would consult with the community regarding the overall experience with the Windsor Police Service during the first term. 

The original renewal notice date of April 30, 2022 was extended to June 30 and again to December 31. During the December 5, 2022 meeting, council approved the CAO’s recommendation and again extended the deadline to renew to March 31, 2023. The rationale for the third extension was that a new council was dealing with several issues and a ‘fulsome public consultation may not be attainable’ during the holiday season. Mayor Prue made a point of ensuring the public understood the town requested an extension ‘so that we can hold public consultations’ on the police contract which would take place between December and March.

The community wasn’t consulted during the three month extension and instead of waiting until March 31, council renewed on February 8, 2023.

During the February 8 meeting, council learned that the 5 year average cost for policing Amherstburg with Windsor Police was 5.4 million and LaSalle’s was 7.8 million; Amherstburg saved a 5 year average of $1,742,205.

As Deputy Maor Gibb mentioned during the February meeting, Essex County counterparts save approximately 2 million annually with the OPP, or about 10 million compared to our insignificant 1.7 million over five years. 

Given that an OPP costing was not obtained prior to the Windsor agreement, which was a disservice to taxpayers, and two previous council motions to obtain an OPP costing were never rescinded, this council should fulfill promises to consult the community and compare all costs and options prior to making another decision.

Essex County’s Fest-for-All: A Call for Action on Accessibility

Posted on by

We need action, not more rhetoric.

From the Essex County News update about the Essex County Accessibility Advisory Committee’s ‘Fest-for-all’.

“Amherstburg is honoured to host this event and there’s no better place to host it than the Libro Centre – an accessible facility and the home of Canada’s first ever Miracle League,” said Amherstburg Mayor Michael Prue. “There will be something for everyone at this amazing festival and it is my hope people come to Amherstburg from far and wide to learn more about accessibility issues and the importance of building inclusive, barrier-free communities.”

Mayor Michael Prue

Well I have been advocating for over 3 decades for accessibility by delegating, emailing, blogging, and writing letters to the editor. I resorted to a human rights complaint against the town to gain equal access to the library following my 10-year campaign.

Both staff and members of council, other than Councillor Pouget, have dismissed the existence of Open Air barriers. The number one complaint in the residents’ Open Air survey is accessibility but council did not take any meaningful action about it.

Councillor Crain

  • was the sole opposition to a residents’ Open Air survey, stating they’ve done an Open Air survey for residents and businesses so he felt it would waste staff time. CAO Critchley confirmed there was no resident wide survey. 
  • Crain was part of the team that created the THRIVE Open Air white paper; from the THRIVE website, ‘We believe that it should be a permanent summer feature.’ 
  • During the 2022 campaign, Crain said yes to removing barriers during Open Air; it is important that all members of the community can experience Open Air. If there are particular barriers in place, I am more than willing to investigate further and help find a solution.
  • Crain also said he didn’t even think Open Air should have been a topic of discussion, that they shouldn’t even be discussing this every year because eventually it’s going to be nothing. 
    • During the November 21, 2024 Economic Development Advisory Committee Meeting Crain moved, McArthur seconded That:
      1. The report on the Open Air including the Business Survey and Open House BE RECEIVED for information; and
      2. Council SUPPORT the continuation of Open Air, in the same format, same times, and same duration, for the remainder of the current term of Council.
    • During the November 25, 2024 council meeting, Crain moved, and McArthur seconded That:
      1. The report on the Open Air including the Business Survey and Open House BE
    • RECEIVED for information; and
      2. Council SUPPORT the continuation of Open Air, in the same format, same times, and same duration, for the remainder of the current term of Council.

Councillor McArthur

  • volunteered to be on the Amherstburg accessibility committee
  • has championed Open Air.
  • McArthur said everybody he talked to loves Open Air the way it is.
  • McArthur stated how families come together, and he didn’t want to take that away from people. (Yet children with disabilities that can’t equally access play areas can’t come together with families, so they have that opportunity taken from them).
  • During the 2022 campaign, McArthur said if there are persisting issues with accessibility, let’s work collaboratively to address them in consultation with the Town’s Accessibility Advisory Committee.

Deputy Mayor Gibb

  • publicly admitted he’s a huge fan of Open Air.
  • Gibb stated he was ‘proud to say that I did complete the ADOA training that was offered to all members of council and I hope to put what I learned into practice not only in my “municipal life” but also in my personal life.
  • And then he said, “to me, Open Air makes the downtown more accessible for people with in at least in wheelchairs because I’ll tell you right now, try and push a wheelchair down one of those downtown sidewalks and you’ll see exactly what I mean.”
  • am800 2024, Gibb said, “”It’s family friendly, it’s free, it’s pet friendly, it’s accessible so we just want to invite all of Windsor and Essex County to come out to Amherstburg and get together and have a great time.”

Mayor Prue

  • broke the tie vote in favour of 14 weekends for 2023.
  • in 2023 Prue said, I have been to every single one of these events and probably most of the Open Air weekends; not all of them, but most of them. I have never seen any problem with access. My wife is the chair of the accessibility committee. I have discussed it with her she has never once said that there was any accessibility problem brought to that committee or anyone on the committee. I know there was one complainant, but I don’t necessarily agree with what’s being said. (aside from my complaint, council was advised that there was a member of the community who felt that there were barriers).
  • On the rainbow crosswalk, Prue said, ‘WE ARE AN INCLUSIVE COMMUNITY. GET USED TO IT’. “It helps to reinforce what an inclusive community is all about.” “I’m very proud of this town and foresight and the inclusivity that people have shown.”
  • On the dog park, Prue said it ‘reflects our commitment to creating a vibrant and inclusive community for all residents, including our beloved canine companions.’
  • On the Salty Dog patio, Prue said I am sorry that some people are not getting out of the way when someone comes by with a cane or a walker or a wheelchair, but what difference would it make if there was two cars there instead of the patio? If they won’t get out of the way on the sidewalk, they won’t get out of the way. And so I think a business case has been made, and I do believe that is in the best interest of the town to be a welcoming and friendly place for people to sit out and have a meal in the sun.
  • During the 2022 campaign, one of Prue’s priorities was, ‘Ensure all town buildings are accessible to facilitate an open and inclusive municipality.’ 
  • Prue referenced the AODA in 2023 and said in this town, we have not brought it into force. 
  • In 2025 Prue referenced the AODA and said, ‘this town has not been compliant. And I have promised, as mayor, and the council has promised, that we will hence for, hence forward, going forward, always be AOD compliant. And I want people to know that the those who have disabilities have every right to use every one of the services in this town, the same as everyone else.’
  • On the sign by-law in 2025, Prue said I don’t mind the signs. I don’t mind them, provided they are AOD compliant. I will never, never support a sign that is blocking someone who is blind, in a wheelchair, a mother in a carriage, with a carriage. I will never, ever support that sign on the street, because those people have rights, same as all of us. They’re not different. They have rights, and their rights, I think, supersede the rights to be safe, supersede the rights to make money.

    Anne Rota
  • was ordered to take human rights training following a human rights tribunal hearing
  • on Open Air, said, ‘there are no barriers in open air. There are not. Please come down and have a look. I know that for a fact. It’s not just the golf cart. We’ve actually opened up our arms if someone needs to get through. We’ve never had one complaint. That’s the honest truth in three years, and I’m sure we would have.’

Accessibility Needs To Consistently Be At Forefront

Posted on by

As published in the River Town Times.

Re Sign bylaw frustrates business owners, town council makes amendment

Council’s discussion and subsequent motion to amend the bylaw to require that all signs be AODA compliant seems misguided and appears to be a performative concern.  

The signs discussed are not mentioned in the AODA or its Regulation. 

The report to council cited AODA compliance for sidewalks as per the Design of Public Spaces Standard. However, even then, sidewalks are to be made compliant when constructing new ones or redeveloping them. Although there are AODA exemptions for sidewalks for heritage reasons, they were not relied on for George Street.

Admittedly, A-frame signs can be a barrier but if placement is a concern then guidelines need to be created like in other municipalities that have approved Heritage Conservation Districts.

Deputy Mayor Gibb is quoted as saying, “we’ve charged other businesses to use town property. I don’t know what the difference is here.” My guess is there is a difference between patios taking away valuable parking spaces and a sign on a boulevard interfering with nothing.

As for the claim that these infractions, ‘undermine the Town’s efforts to maintain an inclusive and navigable public space,’ council has had opportunities to increase inclusivity but has not done so.

Open Air barriers prevent equal participation of some people with disabilities and do not provide an inclusive and navigable space. The number one resident complaint in the Open Air survey is accessibility. I emailed and/or delegated eight times requesting council to enact a patio policy to ensure AODA compliance and I provided a resource. Other barriers to equal participation need to be removed and there needs to be meaningful consultation with the disability community.

There needs to be a stronger commitment to accessibility, but it needs to be consistently at the forefront. Otherwise, one might conclude that accessibility is being embraced for appearance’s sake or when it suits.

Commentary by Linda Saxon

Multi-Year Accessibility Plan Survey Errors

Posted on by

Aside from errors and the misspelling of Cholchester, my opinion is that the survey does not seek meaningful feedback.

The title on ‘talk the burg’ is, Year 3 Multi-Year Accessibility Plan Survey, but then it states Year Two: “The Town of Amherstburg needs your feedback to assist with the Year Two Public Consultation on the Multi-Year Accessibility Plan.”

It states, “This year’s focus will be on five key areas” but lists only three:

  1. Parkland/Trails and bench placement;
  2. Recreation/Play Equipment and its placement;
  3. Accessible Street Parking.

Another error is the date; it states, “All surveys must be received by Tuesday, July 3, 2025.” It should read Thursday, July 3.

As for the survey questions, under the heading, Parkland, Trails & Recreational Amenities, did you use a bench on multi-use paths or trails, where, was it conveniently placed?

Same if you used a bench in a park.

Under the heading, Recreation/Play Equipment, if anyone in your household requires accessible playground structures, which parks you use, if placement of accessible playground elements was conveniently placed.

Under the heading, Accessible Street Parking choose your primary and secondary means of travelling in town: car, bus, taxi, walk, mobility device, other and if you require accessible parking, what percentage of the time you locate a spot, or select ‘I do not require an accessible parking,’ (space missing) which shouldn’t be a choice if you selected yes to requiring accessible parking.

There’s a fourth heading, not listed, for Communication. The accessibility advisory committee has focused on an Aphasia Friendly initiative this past year; the town applied for and received a $16, 375. provincial grant to “raise public awareness and enable change in all aspects of public life. The Town of Amherstburg has partnered with Aphasia Friendly Canada and the Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory at the University of Windsor with the goal to establish Amherstburg as the country’s first Aphasia Friendly community.” I have reached out to the group a few times but my questions remain unanswered.

Under the heading, Communication the survey asks for self-identification of having a communication disability and what is used to communicate with people outside the home, such as at a business or the municipality (the assumption is that one doesn’t use communication aids in the home I guess). Selections include sign language, electronic device, cards, personal assistance, other, and ‘I am not a person with a communication disability’ which, like the parking question, shouldn’t appear if the answer is yes.

There are two unrelated questions pertaining to your awareness of and attendance at last year’s inaugural Accessibility for All event at Cholchester Harbour in Essex. (The proper event title is, “Accessibility Fest-for-All”) and the same for the 2025 event at the Libro.

RECAP Council Meeting June 24, 2025 Part 1 Sign By-law Delegates and Discussion

Posted on by

Objectionable. Mayor Prue’s offensive terminology, a good indicator that council needs more intensive accessibility training, Deputy Mayor Gibb’s ridiculous rant about human rights complaint and speaking as a business owner, the usual kudos to staff, maybe a bit more than usual, typical confusion about motions, unnecessary clarifications sought, time wasting passing the gavel, and five passionate delegates pleading to keep signs to offset lost revenue.

Delegate 1: Paul Peltier, representing the K of C hall, mentioned having a sign there for at least 30 years with no complaints and no problems; it doesn’t interfere with any pedestrian traffic, and are at least a meter and a half away from the parking blocks. Peltier noted how important the sign is to advertise bingo, fish fries and making donations to community groups of over $40,000. annually, and donating almost half a million dollars since the beginning. He said it really hurt to have somebody come in and say, you got to move it. 

Questions to Peltier:

Councillor Pouget thanked Peltier, acknowledged the hard work of the K of C and for confirmation that the sign has been there for 30 years, and is not on the sidewalk. Councillor Courtney asked him what he didn’t agree with regarding the proposed sign by-law. Councillor Allaire asked if he was okay with a fee if he had to pay a fee for it, like an annual fee of $150. Prue reminded Allaire that fee was for A frames and this is not an A frame. Allaire wanted to ask Bill Tetler a question and Prue said ok but then he said questions were to be directed to the deputants. Peltier focused on how they say it has to be so far from the lot line and then it says you can only do it for a certain period of time and then you can’t leave the sign there, and it’s got to go back in; he was ok with a fee.

Questions to Staff

Pouget asked Tetler why his sign had to be removed when it does not; before she finished her sentence, Bill Tetler explained that the sign is, under the sign by-law definition, a mobile sign, that requires a permit under the current sign by-law; it required a permit under the previous sign by-law as well.

Pouget said they never had a permit for all these years and Tetler said he was not aware of them ever having a permit for a mobile sign. Allaire asked which type of sign he would consider the Knights of Columbus’ sign to be under the sign by-law; permanent or mobile. (Tetler just told Pouget that it’s a mobile sign under the sign by-law).

Allaire then asked about the cost to keep it there permanently and Tetler said they weren’t allowed under the current by-law; it could be there for 200 days, for $1 per day, and the business can choose the duration at any given time. He explained the maximum is 60 days at a time, there has to be a 14 day break in between the maximum days of permits. But someone could apply for a 15 day permit and then a 23 day permit, like they can utilize their 200 days to the best to their business. Tetler said they could contact the building department and work with them about erecting a permanent sign on that property, potentially with a manual change in letters, rather than having a mobile sign. Tetler continued, a mobile sign is not a permanent sign; it cannot be used as a permanent sign but by definition, if a mobile sign is never leaving the location, it could be looked at as a permanent sign.

Prue passed the gavel just to ask, if they move it somewhere else on the lot will they be in any violation at all? Tetler said they could apply for a mobile sign permit and have it located elsewhere on the property

Delegate 2: Lynn Durfy, owner of Lynn’s Variety for the last 31 years expressed concerns about the current by-law that prohibits sandwich signs and A frame signs on the boulevard where she’s had her sign for the last 24 years. Durfy said her sign has never caused a problem, no one ever complained until the by-law officer stood in front of her threatening a fine if it wasn’t moved in 24 hours. She said she moved the sign into her parking lot three metres as she was told she needed to be from the sidewalk and then she got a phone call saying that she still was going to be fined because it needed to be three metres from the lot line, which is technically the front of her building, so the sign then needs to be right up against the side of my building to meet the by-law. 

There were no questions of the delegate.

Questions to Staff

Courtney spoke at length and mentioned AODA compliance and limiting the number of signs, the size of the sign and how secure it is and said he had a general question. Prue asked him to ask a question specifically about Lynn’s Variety like, why is that sign not appropriate? Why is it illegal? Prue then asked why it was illegal. Tetler said the setback requirement of the sign by-law is two meters; any business owner that has enough property to have the sign on their property is allowed to have it. He suggested that most businesses will be allowed to have the sign, just maybe not in the current location.

Delegate 3: Peter Leardi, business owner for 40 years now, 21 years at their current location. He’s had a portable sign in front of my current location for 21 years for multiple reasons:

  • To announce new seasonal arrivals. 
  • To advertise promotional items, advertise end of season sales. 
  • The ability to advertise and take advantage of all the traffic on Sandwich Street was one of the reasons he moved his business and spent $600,000. 21 years ago. That portable sign would help draw traffic into his store and hopefully keep business here in our community. 
  • The sign was four feet wide and five feet tall; it sat three feet on his property and one foot on town property. There existed 12 feet of remaining sidewalk from the edge of his sign to the road curb. In absolutely no way was his sign an impediment to pedestrian traffic, vehicle traffic, and it was also AODA compliant. 
  • In the 21 years that that sign sat out in front of his store, the only complaint that he ever received was from the town of Amherstburg. On April 25 of this year, he received an order to comply that said he didn’t have a permit and it was too close to the lot line. 

Leardi wanted to address some conditions of the new by-law and his order to comply:

  1. The order to comply stated he didn’t have a permit. However, he wanted everyone to know that he has always paid his permit fee through his sign supplier.  
  2. The order to comply states that his sign is too close to the lot line. That is absolutely true. It sits on 12 inches of town property, but there’s 12 feet of sidewalk to the road, curbside on the other side of that sign, it was bothering no one, by the way, for the last 21 years, that 12 feet of sidewalk and patio on the other side of that sign; he’s swept it, cleaned it, shoveled the snow off of it, salted it, and never once sent the town a bill for that. 
  3. The new by-law puts a limit of 200 days on the use of a portable sign. It goes on to say that this time allowance is generous compared to other municipalities in Essex County; who says the other municipalities are correct? Why limit the use of signs? And can someone please tell him which 200 days of the year are the best years to advertise? There should be no limits on the usage of a sign. If you’ve paid for the permit for the year, let the individual or business use it for the year. He doesn’t understand why the town of Amherstburg would do anything to impede the success of any small business in its community, unless the business was doing something illegal or posing a harm to its citizens, he was doing neither. Just in the month of May this year, and in June, my prom and grad suit sales were down 54% and 45% respectively. He had to take his sign down on May 2. Aside from affecting his business, his two tailors here in town had less work. He shared a supportive email from a parent that was grateful to be able to shop locally, while other parents were unaware of a sale because the sign was not out. He said he’d lost enough revenue the last seven weeks to pay for a sign permit for the next 75 years. 

There were no questions of the delegate.

Questions to Staff

Pouget asked Tetler why they would make Mr. Leardi remove his sign if it was less than a foot away from town property and wondered if they couldn’t have worked with him to make sure that he was able to advertise until this report came back to council. CAO Critchley answered that she didn’t believe that council suspended the operation of the by-law so they did not have the authority to do that; that’s up to council to make that motion to suspend that.

Delegate 4: Sarah Brush, proud owner/operator of Speck’s Restaurant in Amherstburg for nearly 55 years, more than half a century. Speck’s isn’t just a restaurant, it’s a gathering place, a part of the fabric of this town, people come for the food, but they return for the connection. For decades, they’ve supported this community, quietly, consistently through local causes, kindness and hard work, but she will always stand up for what’s right, to protect what they’ve built, and to ensure that small businesses like hers are treated with fairness and respect. She said she’s appeared before council more than once, and while it takes time and energy, she will not back down. When she is suddenly told she can’t display a simple open flag she’s had for 55 years, she has no choice but to speak up. That flag never blocked a sidewalk, and it is on her own property; it’s never posed a safety hazard, and it complies fully with AODA standards. She mentioned that customers are confused, foot traffic is down, and their business has suffered because of a by-law that was drafted without real consultation with the people it affects most. 

She said she has never paid a cent to the town to display this flag, and she doesn’t intend to now, this kind of nickel and diming of small businesses isn’t just unnecessary, it’s damaging. It sends the wrong message about who we are as a town. Brush wanted to make it clear that this just isn’t about Speck’s, it’s about every small business in Amherstburg. Small businesses are the heart and soul of this community; they create jobs, attract visitors, and bring life into our streets. When their visibility is restricted, so is their ability to survive. These signs and yes, even flags aren’t clutter. These signs are our connection. They’re how they let people know they’re here and they’re open. When they’re signs come down, so does the energy and life of this town. We want a council that understands us, respects us, and lets us run our businesses the way we always have, with pride, honesty and care.

Brush continued: frankly, this by-law doesn’t make sense. We’re being told to take our signs down, but then told it’s fine if we pay $150 a year. What kind of business logic is that if a sign is truly unsafe or inappropriate, charging a fee doesn’t make it any less so, and if it’s safe and has never been a problem, then why are we being punished for something that has worked for decades? Get rid of this ridiculous by-law. It’s hurting the very people who helped build this town. I still believe in Amherstburg. I believe in working together, and I hope that moving forward, we can have more conversation and not more enforcement, so that Amherstburg stays a place where small businesses feel valued and not punished. Let’s keep this town open, thriving and welcoming, just like it always has been. 

Questions to Brush:

Pouget wanted to clarify that her sign was AODA compatible, not in the way and on her property. Brush said it’s in her garden and 2.5 meters away from the sidewalk.

Questions to Staff

Allaire asked how her sign was illegal if it’s 2.5 meters from the sidewalk. Following some confusion about which sign was being referred to, Tetler said the flag signs referred to in the by-law are prohibited in the HCD, the heritage conservation district, which is why the sign was asked to be removed.

McArthur asked for clarity because they haven’t passed the heritage conservation district. Tetler explained that the by-law states that that type of sign is not allowed in that area. Therefore, they did that enforcement, but A frame signs are allowed to be at the property line in that area. The explanation was that although the district hasn’t been adopted, the area was identified in the sign by-law. 

Pouget agreed with Brush’s question – how is it okay for businesses to put up signs if they pay, but it isn’t if they don’t pay? Pouget asked, aren’t we more worried about keeping our residents safe and to follow the rules of AODA? If we’re making them move their signs because we’re saying they’re not in the correct area, then why would it be okay for them to put their signs there if they pay?

Critchley said if there’s a sign in the HCD, HCD overlay area, that wouldn’t be allowed at all so there would be no payment for sign. She thought that council had to make decisions on whether to allow a mobile sign in the HCD, because the by-law says no to that; A frame signs are permitted if there is enough width on the sidewalk. The fee is because it’s in the public right of way and is an encroachment on town property; and council had to decide whether to keep the 180 day time frame limit for mobile signs.

Pouget noted how they waived fees for residents on George Street, whose homes were on town property and asked if they could do the same thing tonight. Critchley said council can decide whatever council deems is appropriate in circumstances. 

More discussion about what would and would not be allowed in heritage districts. A frame signs would still be allowed in the HCD, mobile signs would not be. McArthur sought clarity again because the report says that mobile signs are not permitted within a heritage conservation district and wondered if that was a provincial rule, or should this read they’re not allowed in ours because it says it’s not allowed in any Heritage Conservation District. 

Delegate 5: Jen DeLuca, from Waterfront Ice Cream, understood that a complaint was made about A frame signs blocking the sidewalk and not being AODA complaint. What she didn’t understand is why an entire by-law had to be rewritten to address this. There was no consultation with the businesses, no meetings, no open houses, just a sign blitz. So they sent emails; they then tried to speak at a previous meeting but were denied the opportunity. They have no recourse to share their concerns when this happens, and here they are, two months later speaking at a meeting. Why is there no other more productive and more expedient way to work with the businesses? The businesses there have had signs out for 50 years, 46 years, 25 years and more, all of which are AODA compliant; they were greeted with citations and pending fines during business hours for not removing their signs. In this two month period, the absence of signs caused a drastic decrease in customers and sales for many, and here they are with a report only to tell them that after having to remove our signs and incur loss of business, they now get to continue to have this prior privilege reinstated, but for a yearly application and fee. This is clearly not about AODA compliance, since their our signs actually meet this criteria. (I strongly agree). It is about greed and taking more money from small businesses. DeLuca mentioned local businesses that would endure burdens: Armando Pizza, Wigle Meats, 67 Richmond Street, noting ‘some of you’ show your public support for Freed’s, Gumballs and Overalls, Ure’s Country Kitchen; their signs impede no one and they are essential to the success of their small businesses. DeLuca said they adopt bylaws that you do not fully read or understand, and there’s no communication with the actual people they affect. (Again, I strongly agree).Then they get five minutes to state their plea publicly. As business owners, they must leave their businesses to do this every time and she pleaded with all of them to do better. She thanked Councillor Pouget because she’s the only one who continues to ask questions for them, and she advocates for them, especially when she admits that her decision was bad for businesses. Asking them to wait for a report and sit tight while losing customers is not an appropriate answer; please erase the fine print in this by-law and don’t charge the business community to advertise for their businesses and livelihood. DeLuca asked, when did we stop taking care of each other? She mentioned how her husband, like Mr. Leardi, maintains the town property beyond their property line. For 46 years, Waterfront has been doing that and now she has to pay to put her sign there. It just doesn’t make sense. If there are other businesses who don’t have that AODA compliance, deal with that in a different light, but to rewrite a whole new by-law and pop in people’s businesses during business hours with a citation and a threat to be fined just doesn’t seem right. It’s not.

There were no questions of the delegate.

Questions to Staff

Pouget said she had no questions, but I do have a motion when it’s time.

Prue said he would allow the motion later since they were discussing general questions, not individual properties, but just about a by-law that is an old, old, old by-law, not new; this is going back 25 years, it just wasn’t enforced. (Didn’t we pay for by-laws to be enforced?)

Pouget asked Critchley if they enact this by-law, would it mean extra work for administration to go out and collect fees. Critchley said if you enacted the amendment to the by-law that the report suggests i.e. allowing A frame signs, if they’re permitted, people would have to make their application, so yes, it is additional work to have the A frame signs on public property. Critchley said they put the fee in there because they were following Council, what they thought was Council’s direction in terms of usage of public property. With the temporary patios it was certainly made clear that people should have to pay to use town property so they wanted to make sure that they were collecting back the money that would be used in staff time to take permits and do inspections. Critchley said the fee that’s being charged is not cost recovery. 

McArthur asked if Mr. Leardi would be allowed to have a mobile sign and if Speck’s restaurant would be allowed to have the flag if they were within the HCD. Tetler said neither would be allowed.

Prue passed the gavel to ask a couple of questions; he mentioned a sign by-law that comes up every four years during elections and how some members had signs removed because they were on town property. He said he doesn’t mind the signs, provided they are AOD compliant. Prue said, “I will never, never support a sign that is blocking someone who is blind, in a wheelchair, a mother in a carriage, with a carriage. I will never, ever support that sign on the street, because those people have rights, same as all of us. They’re not different. They have rights, and their rights, I think, supersede the rights to be safe, supersede the rights to make money.” 

Pure said what he wants to see is a sign by-law which is permissive, which will allow businesses to flourish, but will also be safe, and if they have to charge a few dollars, Ms. Brush says she’s not going to pay, well, he guessed what happens with all by-laws when people don’t pay, you end up in court. Not that that’s a threat, but that’s what happens. That’s what happens with every by-law that’s broken. Prue said Mr. Leardi made a very strong point; he said he would gladly pay because he lost more money. He lost 75 years’ worth of payments for the lack of that sign. I’m sure he would gladly pay for it and Lynn’s Variety, she said she just wanted some kind of compromise and I think that makes perfect sense. The K of C wants to compromise, and one is available to them so as a town they have to try to do something to compromise. He said he was waiting for the motions, but please, whatever they are, make them AOD compliant. Make them enforceable without being onerous. And let’s, as some of the delegates said, bring people back together. He thought it could be done; it’s up to council. He took the gavel back to hear motions. 

Courtney said the gist of what he gathered was AODA compliance and there should be a one sign limit.

Pouget moved a motion to direct administration to allow businesses to advertise with sandwich boards, flags and mobile signs that fall within the guidelines of the AODA and do not obstruct mobility devices without payment to the town of Amherstburg in order to allow these businesses to thrive and to promote economic development. Further to that, this section of bylaw 2025-001 be removed.

Prue made a point of telling people in the audience that just because Councillor Allaire seconded it doesn’t mean she’s necessarily going to support it but she wants to hear it. Allaire asked which section would be removed since she didn’t have the by-law in front of her.

Critchley’s interpretation was that mobile signs and A frame signs would be allowed anywhere in the town if it was AODA compliant. 

Allaire said she had it written a little bit differently, and she would love it if Pouget would just take on her amendments. Allaire was okay with not having mobile signs in our historic district, she didn’t think it would flow nicely with what they’re trying to create in our sweet town. She was okay with the overlay in the historic district, okay with this entire sign by-law to begin with and she was listening and understanding. She had written down that all signs must be compliant with accessibility for Ontario’s with Disability Act, (the proper title is Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act), signs must be placed entirely on the property of the individual for entirety displaying of the sign, so it must be on their property. In cases where the signs are not placed on the owner’s property, a fee shall be charged to offset the cost of the application processing, inspections and potential enforcement actions, that is just to cover the cost the by-law has to come out to make sure that it is safe to be on our property. It is only for signs that are not on entirety of their property and remove the time restriction so signs could be on display year round.

Prue said Pouget’s motion had to be dealt with first. (He should’ve said that as soon as he heard Allaire speak about the motion she had written differently).

Gibb’s speech:  They never tell you when you run for council that you’re going to have to sit and look at your friends out there and disappoint some and make other ones happy. So that’s always the hardest part. The other thing is, I have to say, I wholeheartedly agree with Councilor Allaire; we’re not doing this to be mean, we’re not doing this to make people’s lives difficult, but this town is also a business, and if we don’t follow the law, especially with accessibility, we’re going to be fined. We’re going to be brought in front of the Human Rights Tribunal. It’s going to happen so we have to act. There’s going to be a cost to review these signs that are going to be on town property, there’s going to be a cost because we’re going to have to document it. We’re going to have to make sure we can defend ourselves when the inevitable human rights complaint or lawsuit comes, and I can’t ask the taxpayers to pay that cost. I have to put that like Councillor Allaire said, that has to be paid by the business owner. I’m sorry. It’s just not something that I can put on the taxpayers. We’ve charged other businesses to use town property. I don’t see what the difference is here. You know, the heritage district, as far as mobile signs and flags, I again, I agree with Councillor Allaire. That’s just not what we’re trying to do. I get it. I’m sorry that I’m going to disappoint some of you, but I agree with her that if we’re going to have a heritage district, it has to stay heritage. If your A frame sign is entirely on your property, that’s great that you’ve got the room to do it. If you have to be on town easement, then there’s going to have to be some kind of fee to cover the cost of ensuring it’s there properly. In the sake of what does the mayor always say working together? I was going to say that I’m not entirely happy about having no limit on temporary signs. But again, in the sake of working together, I would support council. I think we have to balance protecting the municipality. We have to balance the fact that we have to document these signs that are on town property, and there’s going to be a cost to it. And if the sign is that important, I know myself as a business owner, I would pay that cost. So if Councillor Allaire has a chance to make that motion, I will second it.

Prue reminded everyone that they were only dealing with Councillor Pouget’s motion and to limit speaking to whether it would be supported or not. Prue recognized Crain and then McArthur to speak.

Pouget said excuse me, I thought I could speak on my motion first in and then Councillor Allaire interrupted and gave her motion; I’m supposed to be able to speak to it. (Pouget is correct. After Allaire read what she wanted her motion to state, Prue said Pouget’s motion had to be dealt with first. And, according to Robert’s Rules of Order, the mover does speak first).

Prue said he didn’t see her hand; he said he would recognize Crain and then he would come back to her and then McArthur.

Crain said he wouldn’t support Pouget’s motion. He believed it would be difficult if there is no cost or reporting to the municipality to confirm if signs are AODA compliant. He said he believes if it’s on town property they have to pay for staff time to conduct inspections.

Pouget said council has repeatedly heard how difficult it is for small businesses to be profitable and viable and how they pay for overhead, insurance, licenses, inspections, compete with online shopping and many more businesses locating in the town of Amherstburg. She referenced Sarah Brush’s statement that these businesses are the heart and soul of our community and have been for many years. They are not here for handouts; they are only asking for respect and a chance to operate their businesses as they have done by advertising with sandwich signs and mobile signs, flags, whatever, to keep their businesses viable in these hard economic times. 

McArthur noted a lot of clarity was needed and asked that a friendly amendment be made to Pouget’s motion to allow for the duration of 365 days. McArthur asked for another clarification: would Speck’s be allowed her flag and Mr. Leardi his mobile sign? (Tetler already answered his same question earlier; he said neither would be allowed in the HCD).

Courtney repeated his thoughts about limiting the number of signs per business and the size. More confusion about whether those stipulations were amendments or were already in the by-law. Prue called the vote, which tied, which he broke in opposition because he liked Allaire’s motion ‘a lot better.’ 

Allaire then read her motion that Prue should’ve stopped her from stating previously. She moved that the sign by-law be amended to include the following provisions. All signs must be compliant with the Accessibility for Ontario’s and Disability Act. (The correct title is the Accessibility for Ontarians With Disabilities Act). Signs must be placed entirely on the property of the individual or entity of displaying the sign. In cases where the signs are not placed on the owner’s property, a fee shall be charged to offset the cost application processing, inspection and potential enforcement actions. The current restrictions on the duration of the time a sign may be displayed shall be removed.

McArthur asked yet another clarifying question: if everything else in the by-law stands. Critchley advised it should come back in August.

McArthur then said he liked Pouget’s motion, which is not always the case. (That’s an understatement, given the number of times he’s chastised her). He would oppose Allaire’s motion because it didn’t address the inequity of prohibiting signs in the HCD.

Gibb said he might as well get in there and share how he generally agrees with McArthur. (again, the number of times they echo each other’s views is obvious). In this situation, he disagreed and, as in prior discussions, it’s about equity – one rule for all.

Another tie vote for Prue to break and he said he thought this motion was better, so it carried.

Amherstburg Library Relocation: Community Concerns Unveiled

Posted on by

Re RTT article, Amherstburg library in early stages of possible relocation, nothing imminent. 

Deputy Mayor Gibb’s statement that “people are assuming something is imminent” is concerning since he advised the library board in March that the town “is expected to begin searching for a new location for the Amherstburg branch in April.”

Gibb claimed his March 26 library board meeting comments stemmed from a March 25 council notice of motion, although council had not debated the notice of motion until April. Council’s subsequent motion was to obtain an administration report on future opportunities to relocate the branch. It might have been more helpful if the library had been included in the town’s space needs study last year.

Three council members’ allegations regarding library deficienciesu are disconcerting, especially because they have not answered questions about the reasons for their statements. 

While Gibb mentioned it certainly has challenges with the tall shelves, which most libraries have, Councillor McArthur stated it’s not as accessible as it otherwise might be ideal. Councillor Allaire said she would like the library to have a new place ‘that’s accessible’ and our library service is small and ‘not as accessible as we want it to be,’ and ‘its challenges are inaccessibility.’ 

The focus of the library board’s facilities space review was space preference which should not be construed as inaccessibility. 

In April, I asked the library board to provide me with any documentation indicating there are accessibility issues at the Amherstburg library; this month, I submitted a Freedom of Information request.

For decades I have repeatedly requested a stronger commitment to accessibility, while Mayor Prue referenced the AODA and declared that they have not brought it into force and this town has not been compliant. 

Council needs to prioritize accessibility and respond to community requests for washrooms in parks, shade structures, inclusive playgrounds, sidewalk repairs or replacements, rest areas, an accessible town hall, accessible voting, accessible signage, accessible parking and paved parking lots, for example. 

Council also needs to justify that its decision on whether to relocate the library is based on facts and not conjecture.

Linda Saxon