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.