Sign police

Too bright for Picton’s Main Street.

Small business tangles with small government over colours

A Picton shop owner has become entangled in the town’s heritage district rules. She was joined in the web last week by a committee of council split between making an exception for—or an example of—a popular small business.

The shop, with its signature yellow and blue awning meant to depict sun and water, is one of the first small businesses visitors to town see when driving in from the west end of Picton. In December, owner Cynthia Nicholls made the move from tenant to owner when she purchased the building next to the Beach Bum’s former location and moved in.

Along with the location upgrade, Nicholls decided it was time to upgrade a sign that had been slowly fading in the seven years since it was first erected. She purchased a large vinyl sign—marketed for its durability—large enough to cover what she saw as an ugly façade.

In January, without any notice of complaint, Nicholls received a visit from a bylaw officer who informed her that, according to a sign bylaw, she had to apply for a permit to erect a new sign. She paid the $100 application fee and, since the application form stated she would hear back within 15 business days, assumed all was well.

Forty days later, Nicholls received a notice from the County. In a staff report to council, County staff were recommending her application be denied.

When Picton’s downtown was designated a heritage district in 2013, guidelines were put in place to make sure any future changes to storefronts along the main street conformed to a certain heritage look. Signage was a part of this change. Signs were to be of a certain colour palette and of a certain size, relative to the building on which they were erected.

The colours of Nicholls’ sign, according to staff, are too bright. Its area is 17.5 per cent of the area of the building’s façade—2.5 per cent more than the maximum 15 per cent. While she has been working with County staff to resolve the issue, it’s become an expensive mistake.

“It comes down to a cost issue. We’re a small business. We bought a building, which was expensive enough,” Nicholls says. “It’s been a slow start to our spring—it’s been snowing in April—we’ve got the downtown torn up now, and it’s having an effect. Money is mostly flowing out, not in. So to have to make additions or take it down and restart, it’s going to cost money. It’s an expense that we can do without.”

Nicholls appeared at a committee of council last week to protest the decision to deny her sign. The Belleville resident knew nothing about the heritage designation, even though she had operated the business as a tenant until 2015. She knew nothing about the procedure during meetings and hadn’t applied to give a deputation, which meant her discussion with council was limited to three minutes.

In that time, she pleaded ignorance, said she had spent a lot of money on the sign and even more to comply with the bylaw, and could not afford the cost of replacing it. Pointing to the many signs on the new LCBO, not within the heritage district but bordering it, and to multiple franchise businesses within the district, Nicholls said it would be unfair to target her small business.

When her time was up, it was council’s turn to weigh in. The decision seemed to weigh in her favour, with councillors David Harrison, Jamie Forrester and Dianne O’Brien speaking adamantly in defence of the small business.

But then the tide turned.

Councillor Barry Turpin argued for the value of the heritage district, and the importance of respecting the bylaws council had already put in place. Allowing Nicholls to keep the sign would create a precedent other businesses might use against the County.

“We have to be very explicit to all of the people out there that we have a sign bylaw. If you’re going to put a new sign up then you’re going to have to [obey] it,” Turpin said. “We do have a sign bylaw, and we do have a building permit [process]. If we’re going to make any changes, we’re going to have to be very careful.”

Councillor Steve Ferguson agreed. He said allowing the sign would be a slippery slope for a heritage district meant to attract visitors and improve business.

“If we’re going to preserve the façades on Main Street and draw people to a unique portion of County history, I feel if we’re going to make that version of that district, we have to keep it within those stringent guidelines, and this falls outside that. Otherwise, we compromise the entire intent of declaring it a heritage district.”

The discussion continued down a path that seemed to pit the interest of small business against the importance to heritage. This was pronounced when a debate between councillor Forrester and mayor Robert Quaiff got heated.

Quaiff, who feels allowing the sign would set a dangerous precedent, interrupted Forrester as he listed off some of the businesses in the heritage district with signs that don’t comply with the current bylaws to say those signs have been grandfathered in, and would have to apply for permission under the new guidelines to change their signs, just as Beach Bum should have.

The discussion ended with council split and the permit was denied by a vote of seven to six, with three councillors not present.

Nicholls, who has applied to give a deputation at the April 26 council meeting to ratify this decision, hopes in the meantime she can sway council in her favour.

“I’m optimistic,” she says. “I’ll go back to council with my deputation and have a more open discussion about it and hopefully be able to sway a few people to the other side.”