By Pepper Parr
September 24, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
“So what about that sign?” asks ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward.
“Unfortunately,” she explains “the city has no legal grounds to govern the content of signs. These types of signs that appear before an application is approved have occurred before on other development sites in the city, and we cannot stop them.”
This is the side of what ADI Development calls “hoarding” along Lakeshore Road where there is very high viability. The city describes this as a commercial sign.
“We do, however, govern the size and installation of signs. At my request, by law enforcement looked into this sign and have confirmed the sign is too large. However, ADI is arguing that the sign is hoarding to secure the vacant lot. Our bylaw is apparently silent on messages appearing on hoarding. So for now the sign remains.
The side of the same sign that traffic does not see – hoarding is usually used to contain a lot. Battling this one out is going to consumer a lot of city staff time. Councillor Meed Ward sees this practice as an abuse of the sign bylaw and something that will detract from the look of the city if it is allowed to continue. It will be interesting to see what kind of support she gets from her fellow council members.
“This seems to me to be a significant gap in our sign regulations. There is hoarding at the corner of Brant and Blairholm, currently painted black; the owner has been asking to place a billboard here for years. How long do you think it will be before we see a sign replacing the black paint on this hoarding, or elsewhere in the city? We don’t want a billboard-as-hoarding free-for-all.
“I have asked for a meeting with our bylaw staff to discuss how we might revise our bylaws to address the issue of oversize signs masquerading as hoarding.
Meed Ward adds that “Any sign or advertisement suggesting the imminent arrival of a development project that has not been approved is misleading and confusing. These signs create concern around whether a deal has been struck behind closed doors without the public’s knowledge in the dog days of summer. Emphatically, no. Such signs also require an exasperating expenditure of time and resources to correct the facts.
Meed Ward adds that she is not persuaded the sign is “hoarding.” The sign is only in one corner of the lot – the part facing traffic; the other sides are open, with wide gaps between boards and caution tape. Most hoarding runs the perimeter of a property. This construction effort is not securing the site. I’m concerned about public safety and the security and installation of this massive billboard. I will be doing some further investigating with staff.
“I will be sending correspondence to the developer asking that they show more respect for the community, remove the existing sign, and state in any future communication that this project is proposed only and subject to an OMB decision next year” said Meed Ward
“I will also ask that they not to use hoarding as an opportunity for an oversize billboard, but erect a sign more in keeping with our sign bylaw.”
Makes the downtown vibrant.
The ADI web site has a conceptual view of the proposed building.
They state the building is in “pre construction” TRUE
They state the sales office is set up for “registration” TRUE
Signs say “coming soon” TRUE
No confusion as we will be getting a building some time after the OMB has made a decision. Advertising and registration is common practice for a pre construction project.
If we do not have a by law governing advertising on hording Meed Ward is correct we should have some control. To late for this project however, should help with any future conflicts.
If the concern is the open portions perhaps ADI would be willing to close them in with temporary fencing and meet the apparent definition of hording. This would reduce much need parking in the core but satisfy the safety issue.
Whatever building we end up with it will be an enduring reminder of a council that could not find a way to even vote on the issue. Lets not get side tracked with signs.
Mead Ward should drop the act over the sign. It’s a red herring for the pass ADI got to OMB. More care should have been given to the 180 days.
Shaving a few feet off a sign changes nothing.
I am much more concerned with the Lighted sign on Burloak Drive for the Convention Centre. Driving southbound during dark hours we are blinded by the brightness of this sign. I have contacted the city regarding the safety of this situation but problem still exists.