Volume 134                                TUESDAY, AUGUST 3, 2010                                No. 31  

A Division of Canwest Publishing Inc.

Cheering on the amateurs

 

 

 

Serving Kingsville and Area since 1876

 

Mailing Address

17 Chestnut St.

Kingsville, Ontario

N9Y 1J9

 

 

Email Contacts

 

Advertising: RSims@canwest.com

 

The debate over a draft bylaw regulating and prohibiting portable signs in the Town of Kingsville drew a sharply divided crowd at the July 26th meeting of Council. A motion was passed by Council requesting that Administration further amend the bylaw to satisfy some of the concerns brought up by residents, business owners, and members of Council.

   The draft bylaw regulates portable signs in areas not zoned commercial, and prohibits them on road allowances. It was presented by the Director of Corporate Services/Clerk, Ruth Orton-Pert. According to her report, the intent of the bylaw is twofold. It is designed to “address aesthetics and public safety by way of enforcement” as well recognize “the need to communicate information of interest to the public through the issue of permits”.

   The Clerk said that the bylaw had been drafted due to the receipt of “a number of calls from residents regarding the abundance of signs on road sides” by the Mayor. Mayor Nelson Santos suggested that the process for regulating the signs be addressed in two steps: the first would focus on signs located on road sides; the second on signs located in the commercial areas.

   The draft bylaw considered at the July 26th meeting dealt with the first step. It defined, in part, a portable sign as “any advertising device used to convey information and to attract the attention of the public by means of letters, numerals, symbols” designed to not be “permanently affixed” in the ground or to a structure. It includes signs with or without wheels, and those mounted on a trailer. A permit will be required for these signs on any land within the boundary of the Town that are not in the commercial zone. Application for the permit will require a fee, the amount of which has not been determined but may be in the range of $75 to $150 to cover the cost of administration and potential enforcement. Community groups and registered charities will need to apply for a permit, but will not be required to pay the fee.

   According to Ms. Orton-Pert, a permit will be valid for 30 days. The permit holder will then not be issued another permit within that 90 days for the same location, which means users of the portable signs will only be able to post a sign three times a year at 90 day intervals in the same location. Contravention of the bylaw could lead to the sign being removed and disposed of and/or a fine.

   A number of residents were pleased that the bylaw would be addressing what some called a positive step that needed tweaking, and others felt was a panacea to being bombarded with all “these signs”. Dr. Ken McNeilly told Council that he was glad to see they were looking at this issue, and said he was behind anything that can be done to rid Kingsville of the “roadside capital of Canada” designation. He said that “the only thing I can personally do is boycott those who use (these signs) to advertise.”

   Lloyd Brown-John said the felt that the signs should not be “helter skelter” and that advertising should be strategic and target a specific audience. He made a number of submissions to Council about the draft bylaw, suggesting that the fee structure should be set at $150. He said if he were grading the document he would give it a B+ or an A-.

   Jim Shean told Council he was concerned with advertisers from outside the municipality using portable signs and proposed that they not be issued permits. He also suggested that community festivals such as the Apple Festival and Migration Festival not be required to get a permit every year and that an ordinance to cover these events be put in place to that effect.

   Wayne Gunning expressed concern that having to apply for a permit for these signs for community events by charities and nonprofit groups was just adding more work to the heavy load volunteers are already carrying, even if there is no fee attached. He also said that he was in the retail business for twenty-five years and told those in favour of the draft bylaw that if “you haven’t walked in our shoes, give us a break”.

   Lorraine Goddard made the point that it is a particularly difficult time for small business right now, and said the signs are necessary to promote the benefits of coming to Kingsville. She said that “people need to see what it has to offer.” One of the proprietors of a local restaurant, she said that the restaurants in town are part of the foundation of tourism, and if the draft bylaw is passed then Council is making “it hard to compete.” She said the signs are “the most cost-effective way for restaurants to actually promote themselves”, and suggested that Council “should be helping to promote and not present more barriers.”

   Local businessman, Bob Swaddling, told Council that it was not only the restaurants that would suffer. He said that the way to stay in business right now is to advertise, and that the bylaw would only serve to penalize businesses with another cost.

   Mayor Nelson Santos said that the bylaw was not “an outright ban” on the signs. He said that he understood the value of the signs but that there has been an abuse of usage with five signs on one property. He said that the application fee would help control the signs, and not have them placed in the same spot all the time.

   Councillor Bob Peterson said that “the image of Kingsville is deteriorating rapidly because of these signs” and he wants the town to come back to what it was before their proliferation. Deputy Mayor Katherine Gunning said that she could not vote in favour of the bylaw as the signs were a necessity even if they were a blight. She said we should “not hit the businesses for their advertising needs,” and told Council that she had spoken to a long time local business owner who used the signs, and he reported that his profits have risen 40% since he started using them.

   Councillor Chris Lewis said that the signs were most definitely an issue affecting the downtown, but suggested that they not use “an iron fist”. He suggested that the bylaw “not be put into place until January of 2011 to give small business owners time to be creative.”

   A number of amendments to the draft bylaw will be brought back before Council, dealing with the size of the signs, the fee structure, the nonresident issue, and exemptions for fruit stands.

 

 

   The proposed rerouting of some truck traffic from the downtown core along Road 2 has residents along the road up in arms. The municipality’s Master Transportation Plan, which has yet to be approved, is calling for unnecessary trucks in the downtown to be rerouted along McCain and Graham Sideroads and Road 2.

   “The plan is for trucks who don’t need to be in the downtown, those making deliveries outside the core, rerouted to alleviate congestion,” said Director of Municipal Services Andrew Plancke.

   Those trucks with deliveries to business in the downtown, will obviously be accepted. The proposed route would see trucks that have no business in town, travel from County Road 20 up McCain Sideroad to Road 2. They would then head east on Road 2 to Kratz Sideroad, Graham Sideroad or Union Avenue.

   Several public meetings were held by Council to discuss the Master Transportation Plan, but it was after these meetings that concerns from Road 2 residents arose. A residents’ meeting was held earlier in the summer at Trinity Church New California to discuss the matter.

   Among those worried is Robert Haggins.

   “The greatest concern for using Road 2 for truck movement between Harrow and Leamington would of course be the path that would take the trucks past the arena, sports complex, and anticipated location for the new Splash Park,” said Haggins. “The proposal that would take so many heavy trucks past so many children, should not even have been on the table for serious consideration. No matter what the set speed limit might be, accidents can and do easily occur especially where a vehicle full of children can easily have very distracted adult drivers, not to mention the numerous children that would be travelling the area on bikes.”

   Haggins went on to raise concerns about the exorbitant cost of rebuilding McCain Sideroad and Road 2 to accommodate truck traffic.

   In Alliston, Ontario, for example, truckers face serious fines if they deviate from the assigned truck route around the community.

   Road 2 does not fall under either the MTO or County, as it is a municipal road.

   The report does outline concerns of local residents regarding trucks. Those residing along Road 2 share many of those concerns.

   The report states, “Issues related to existing truck routes include: public concerns regarding heavy truck traffic along predominately commercial and residential roads; the impact of truck traffic on rural roads that were not designed to carry heavy vehicles on a routine basis resulting in increased but un-reimbursed maintenance, potholes, and a premature need to reconstruct these roads; protection from residents/children from safety hazards of truck traffic; noise and air pollution related to truck traffic in primarily residential areas of the town; appropriate truck routes for harbour traffic; pedestrian/cyclist and truck conflict/safety issues on rural roads.”

   According to the statistics in the study, seven per cent of vehicles traveling between McCain Sideroad and Heritage Road are trucks. Only two per cent from Heritage to Division are trucks, a figure which drops a per cent between Division and Wigle Avenue.

   Trucks comprise seven per cent of traffic between Road 2 and Main Street along Division Street.

   It is noted in the report, “The intersection of Main and Division streets is currently a hub of pedestrian and vehicular activity within the Town of Kingsville. As area travel demands continue to grow the intersection can be expected to become a major traffic constraint. As the intersection of two County Roads, this has also historically represented the traditional truck route. The diversion of truck traffic around the congested area would promote a more efficient movement of goods throughout the urban area, while easing projected traffic congestion in the downtown area.”

   This issue has really began to heat up in recent weeks as Road 2 residents look to voice their concerns with council.