Tonight’s themes…..there are several…..signs, roads, water……possible electioneering and a little bit (a lot?) of pontificating ?? Although some on council have not declared their intentions to run for council again, well, their intentions are becoming clearer as the deadline looms. Sounds like a title for a soap opera “As the deadline looms”. LOL
There had been a Planning meeting at 5:00, but it was over by the time I arrived around 5:45. For some reason, the show didn’t get on the road until around 6:10. The meeting started off strong and interesting, but turned boring towards the middle and stayed that way until the end. I was yawning. Yes, that boring. But I yawned very quietly.
Signage Requests in the Context of Urban Design Guidelines
This item was calling for a moratorium on all signage requests in the town of Amherstburg. They had moved this item up on the agenda, even though it was supposed to be discussed later in the meeting. However, if they passed this item early in the meeting, Councillor Meloche was concerned that Mr. Bondy, whohad made his application months ago would be side swiped if they passed the moratorium before he had a chance to speak tonight. The CAO felt it was not side swiping, just a concern that council will soon be receiving the Urban Design Guidelines and that there is concern with some of council’s previous decisions regarding sign exemptions. CAO Miceli felt that the Urban Design Guidelines should be in place before waving any more bylaws. He went on at length (my opinion) about what we envision Amherstburg to be in the future and that some of the signs go against this vision. He said he felt very strongly about the issue. Councillor Meloche felt that it was great that the Heritage Committee was consulted however, he felt that the business community should be approached for feedback and input. The CAO agreed but felt that would be done when the guidelines are finalized. He said that there was poor representation from the businesses during the consultation process about the sign bylaw….only 20 out of 220 businesses showed up.
Then Councillor Fryer pointed out that had Mr Bondy been here 2 weeks ago for the last meeting, his sign would have been dealt with. Councillor Fryer wanted to just move through the agenda and allow the delegations and deal with the moratorium later in the meeting.
Councillor Pouget felt taxpayer money had been spent for Urban Design Guidelines and then made a motion to pass the moratorium on signs. Councillor Courtney seconded. Councillor Lavigne seemed concerned that if they passed the moratorium at this point in the meeting, they would not only have to consider relief for Mr. Bondy from the bylaw but ALSO from the moratorium. (This was getting more and more complicated…..)
Then Councillor Fryer made a motion to defer the moratorium motion until AFTER the delegations. This passed. We were back to square one and off to the races with the delegations.
Clarification Regarding Signage Variance Request – Brad Bondy & Amy
Bailey, Remax Preferred Realty
Mr. Bondy spoke and told council that he was told he didn’t need to be present at the last meeting, so he did not attend. But since council had questions, here he was. He had made a request to install a sign on a property that he owns, but it is not a place from which he runs his business. He said he was open to anything and just wants a sign.
Councillor Meloche suggested he work with the Heritage Committee to see if his sign could incorporate the heritage concept. The CAO seemed not to agree with this idea and there was some back and forth. Councillor Pouget expressed that council went through this process and had asked the public what they wanted. She said they didn’t want sign pollution, therefore council passed a bylaw and now perhaps a moratorium and she felt the sign exemptions were defeating the whole purpose.
Anyway, this turned into another lengthy back and forth. Mr Bondy repeatedly expressed his willingness to cooperate and do whatever council wanted. Finally, Councillor Fryer made a motion to allow the sign after consultation with the Heritage Committee and it passed. (No recorded vote, but it looked like 5 hands raised in favour and 1 didn’t…...)
Request for Relief from Sign By-law 2006-26 – Mark Pittao, Owner,
Pittao`s AutoCare Inc.
Mr Pittao was looking to install a portable sign to advertise his business on another business owner’s property. Mr Pittao spoke briefly and said he was looking for the same exemptions for his sign as was given to others….he cited Luigi DiPierdomenico and Waterbee Pools.
Councillor Lavigne was quick to point out that Waterbee Pools owns the property that his sign sits on, even if it’s not where he does business (still an exemption to the bylaw). Councillor Pouget pointed out that Waterbee’s business is located in Harrow and that she had voted against the sign. Councillor Fryer pointed out that regardless of where the business runs, the owner of Waterbee’s was still a tax payer and that the sign was not going on somebody else’s property.
Basically, council received the delegation and that was that. No signs for Mr Pittao on somebody else’s property.
Residents of Angstrom Court
This delegation wasn’t on the agenda, but council had waived the rules to allow them to speak. Mr. Handysides (sorry if I misspelled that) spoke. He was requesting to have Angstrom Court moved up the list of roads to be repaired on the Roads Study. He said there are large holes in the road that get repaired with ashphalt. The road is made out of cement. The repairs don’t hold properly and then get worse. He told a story about a resident who hit a rut with her bike tire and fell of her bike. Her toe was severely damaged and required surgery and missed 8 weeks of work. He said that kids can’t play on the road because of it’s poor condition. There was a picture posted on the big screen up front. He said that Angstrom is around 170th on the list.
Councillor Pouget felt that at one time, perhaps 6 years ago, that the road was on the list to be done in 2014. She wondered where things were at now. Mr. Hewitt explained that the roads needs study was done in 2016 to help council decide where to spend the money to repair roads. Seems now Angstrom Crt is 180th on the list. (The people in the crowd got angry and started speaking…..the Mayor had to use the gavel and tell them to wait…..they offered more pictures…..)
Councillor Fryer hopes that the next council goes on road tours. He told us that he’s heard from the residents and he was hurt on a sidewalk that wasn’t repaired. Then Councillor Lavigne said he lived on Angstrom Crt about 20 years ago. He expressed to use caution since the last meeting had been about the condition of the Second Concession. He also said that if certain councillors are going to get residents together to come before council, it will get difficult. He didn’t feel that Angstrom should be 183rd on the list but he did admit he’s not an engineer. He also felt it was horrible that the previous council didn’t spend any money on roads. (This argument always catches my attention……whenever “previous council” gets blamed for anything really. Two members of our current council were on that council. Two members of this council were on council the term before as well……what does this say? Will the next council blame this council for their ways??? To me, that’s a very slippery slope to try to lay blame on a previous council……just my opinion.) Councillor Lavigne wondered what it would cost to replace Angstrom Crt. Mr. Hewitt said roughly between $350,000 to $400,000. Councillor Lavigne said he felt bad for the residents but that the money isn’t budgeted, therefore, it’s a lot of money to suddenly pull from somewhere. Councillor Fryer said that he didn’t invite anybody to speak and that they had gone to the newspaper about the condition of their road. A motion was made for a report of the condition of Angstrom Court and it will come back to council later.
2018 Water and Wastewater Operating and Capital Budgets
There was a potential 5% increase to the water rates. Councillor Pouget said that some people will complain but she feels that it’s a reasonable increase, it’s only $15 per household. She feels that’s fair to pay to keep water safe.
Councillor Fryer then went on (and on and on…..?) about how everyone loves the taste of our water. (I’ve lived in this town all my life……I have yet to have a guest tell me “wow! Thank you for this delicious glass of water!…..maybe it’s just me) He said there’s lots of positive feedback about the taste of our water and it’s something we should be touting. (My opinion…..seemed a little over the top to me….but maybe I’m just not appreciative enough of our excellent tasting water?? Don’t get me wrong, I like water, it’s fine, but I don’t generally get that excited about it I guess.) Councillor Courtney said that she agreed with Councillor Fryer, that she does not notice a taste difference between our tap water and bottled water. (Me neither, I guess I just don’t get all excited about it LOL). Councillor Courtney also felt that $15 extra for water was okay. Mayor DiCarlo said that it’s very difficult to compete with other municipalities that don’t have a water plant to maintain.
Anyway, this passed. Water rates going up 5%.
Ontario Main Street Revitalization Initiative
From the report : “The Main Street Revitalization Initiative is a $26 million fund to help municipal governments undertake main street revitalization activities that support and benefit small businesses.”
Here are the two choices for council on how to spend the money :
Implementation of priority financial incentives in existing Community Improvement Plans (CIP) such as:
a. Commercial building façade improvements;
b. Preservation and adaptive reuse of heritage and industrial buildings;
c. Provision of affordable housing;
d. Space conversion for residential and commercial uses;
e. Structural improvements to buildings (e.g. Building Code upgrades);
f. Improvement of community energy efficiency; and
g. Accessibility enhancements.
Funding of strategic municipal physical infrastructure such as:
a. Signage – wayfinding/directional, and gateway;
b. Streetscaping and landscape improvements – lighting, banners, murals,
street furniture, interpretive elements, public art, urban forestation,
accessibility, telecommunications/broadband equipment, parking, active
transportation infrastructure (e.g. bike racks/storage, cycling lanes and paths)
and pedestrian walkways/trails; and
c. Marketing plan implementation – business attraction and promotion activities,
special events.
After some back and forth, council decided to apply the funding toward eligible costs for strategic municipal physical infrastructure, Signage-wayfinding/directional and or gateway………titled Gateway Signage.
Now, I will weigh in with my thoughts on this……..Really?? Electronic gateway signs?? The town will charge to have a message flash by as you drive by. I think of the electronic sign at the Libro ….as I drive by what am I able to realistically read? It depends what’s on the screen, the few words up there as I drive by……How much will I be able to read on a LED sign at the gateway as I drive by? Ironically, one of the reasons to get rid of ALL signs at the gateway was that it encouraged distracted driving…….and these new electronic signs will create what???…… Anyway, I really think council could have done better with these funds, but the decision has been made so I guess we’ll be getting two electronic signs, one at each gateway.
Signage Requests in the Context of Urban Design Guidelines
As previously mentioned, this got passed VERY quickly :
A MORATORIUM BE PLACED on all signage requests
(including portable signs) for the areas bound by Texas Road to
Lowes Side Road and from Meloche Road to the Water’s Edge
until the Urban Design Guidelines for Signage has been
approved.
Councillor Meloche seemed to be the only one with concerns for the business owners and asked if a time line could be added on the moratorium. They didn’t add a time line. So basically, no more sign requests can come before council. At least this term I guess.
Information Reports
There was an information report provided from the Fire Chief. I didn’t read it. Just putting that out there. It seems there’s an increase in training costs and it seems they’ve recently had several firefighters quit. Also it seems that people are applying for their fire pit permits and usually don’t qualify on the first visit…..sometimes they qualify on the second…..or not.
And then off they went, in-camera, again to discuss :
SPECIAL IN-CAMERA COUNCIL MEETING
ITEM A – Ombudsman Preliminary Report – Section 239(3)(b) – An ongoing
investigation respecting the municipality, a local board or a municipallycontrolled
corporation by the Ombudsman appointed under the Ombudsman
Act, an Ombudsman referred to in subsection 223.13 (1) of this Act, or the
investigator referred to in subsection 239.2 (1).
See you in two weeks on “As the deadline looms”……
amherstburg2 