Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-13-82 i - t i CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT D.N. SMITH, M.C.I.P.,Director HAMPTON, ONTARIO 1_0131,10 TEL. (416)263-2231 REPORT TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF JANUARY 25, 1982. REPORT NO. : PD-13-82 I I SUBJECT: By-law 76-25 as amended Town of Newcastle Sign By-law File: 8.1.9 RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that: 1. That report PD-13-82 be received; and 2. That the attached amendments to By-law 76-25, as amended, be forwarded to Council for approval; and !'-,t. " 3. That staff be directed to immediately resume -", u the administration and enforcement of By-law 76-25, as amended. BACKGROUND: i In April of this year, staff undertook a review of the Town's Sign By-law and reported on various proposed amendments and the enforcement of the By-law in respect of the five year deadline for compliance. As the Committee members may recall, By-law 76-25 was approved by Council on May 3, 1976. Said By-law included a provision that upon the expiration of a five-year period, May 3, 1981, all non-complying signs were to be brought into conformity with the provisions of the By-law. Staff Report P-63-81, was approved by Council on April 20, 1981 and following therefrom appropriate notices were placed in local papers advising the public of the Sign By-law requirements in respect of non-conforming signs. Report No. PD-13-82 . . ./2 As a result of staff's efforts to enforce the By-law, it is our understanding that numerous complaints were received by various Councillors. This resulted in Council resolution C-703-81, approved on June 15, 1981, which stated "That no further notices of non-compliance with the provisions of the Sign By-law be processed, pending a review of the by-law by the Finance and Administration Committee and that the Committee review the by-law at their meeting of July 21, 1981. And that a report with recommendations be prepared by the Committee for Council's consideration on Monday, July 27, 1981." This resolution was amended, however, to provide that the by-law be reviewed by a joint meeting of the Planning and Development Committee and the Finance and Administration Committee at their first convenient date. Such a meeting was not held and following establishment of the new Committee structure this item was referred to Planning staff for a Report along with other related matters, by the Town Administrator. COMMENTS: Staff have now completed a further review of the Sign By-law bearing in mind the following concerns: 1. Enforcement of the by-law relative to existing non-complying signs; 2. Council's direction to include provisions for off-site Directional signs; 3. Signs at Gasoline Retail Outlets; 4. Signs affected by road widenings; and I 5. Legally non-conforming uses. Our review of the situation in respect of existing non-complying I signs has indicated that this is the greatest area of concern to both property owners and Councillors. In analyzing the situation we have recognized two groupings of non-compliance. Those signs I i Report No. PD-13-82 . . ./3 which predate enactment of By-law 76-25 and those which were erected following passage of the By-law. I In the case of signs which predate the by-law we are suggesting that certain exemptions be permitted. In short, those signs which predate, and where satisfactory evidence has been produced, could be permitted to remain provided they did not overhang public property such as road allowances, were not located within site triangles and were not in excess of the maximum number of signs permitted for that property. We note, however, that at such time as a change is required to any predating sign, and that change necessitates a sign permit, then such permit will not be issued unless the sign is brought into compliance with all aspects of the Sign By-law. The effect of the proposed change would be to eliminate as many non-complying signs as possible and particularly i those which may, due to location, cause a hazard to the public. This is, in our opinion, the most reasonable way of dealing with the problem. In the case of non-complying signs erected after enactment of the by-law, we are not willing to recommend any concessions, in many instances signs have been erected with full knowledge of the by-law's requirements and in total contravention of them. We must, therefore, recommend that all illegal signs erected subsequent to approval of By-law 76-25 be brought into compliance forthwith. The attached by-law amendments detail the proposed changes which would give effect to the aforementioned suggestions. Similarly, those matters related to off-site directional signs, as requested by Resolution PD-220-81, have been included within the proposed amendments. If approved the new provisions would permit individuals to have a maximum of two off-site directional signs, no larger than five square feet each, indicating the name or nature of the business and directions to it. As with all other signs these must be located at least ten feet back from any street line. In i i I I i Report No. PD-13-82 . . .�4 addition, prior to obtaining permits for such off-site signs, the written permission of the property owner upon whose property the sign would be located, must be obtained. Past reviews, and recent applications for amendments to the Sign By-law have also indicated a need for some additional provisions relative to retail gasoline outlets and legally non-conforming land uses. These too have been included in the suggested amendments and provide for additional identification signs at retail gasoline outlets. As well as permitting legally non-conforming land uses to have signs in keeping with those permitted for similar businesses which are properly zoned. It is our staff opinion that our proposed amendments are reasonable and will resolve many of the problems identified with the existing by-law. However, we cannot overstress the importance of ensuring by-law i enforcement is undertaken and is supported by the members of j Council. In that regard, Council must recognize that there will j continue to be certain aspects of the by-law which will be a cause for concern to many property owners, and that in interest of identifying and correcting areas of concern, relative to the erection of signs within the Town, staff must be given the authority to continue enforcing the By-law, particularly where signs, by virtue of their numbers or location, become a hazard to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. It would therefore be appropriate for Council to approve the attached by-law amendments and to reaffirm their intentions to enforce the provisions of the by-law. Respectfully submitted, TTE:mjc T. T. Edwards, M.C.I.P. i Deputy Director of Planning (� January 12 19 82 1 I i I i CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT D.N. SMITH, M.C.I.P.,Director HAMPTON, ONTARIO LOB 1J0 TEL. (416)263-2231 I ADDENDUM TO STAFF REPORT PD-13-82 Subsequent to the preparation of staff report PD-13-82, staff, in reviewing the provisions of the Sign By-law, determined that there was a conflict between the definition of "Alter" and the provisions of Section 12(4) . Simply put, Section 12(4) exempted alterations involving message only from the requirement for a sign permit. Inasmuch as this could be liberally interpreted to include a complete change in the sign face and could lead to conflicts with other provisions ofthe by-law, staff felt that I this exemption should be deleted or limited only to promotion signs. It is this latter option which staff have included within the attached By-law amendment. Respectfull, submitted, I T. T. Edwards, M.C.I.P. Deputy Director of Planning TTE:mj c January 14, 1982 i i I i i i i