Council denies request to defer sign change
Administrator | Aug 24, 2016 | Comments 56
Council on Tuesday night denied a request to further delay a decision on a downtown Picton sign that doesn’t meet bylaw guidelines.
Cindy Nicholls, owner of the Beach Bum store on Picton’s Main Street, requested a second deferral before completing changes to her sign until the outcome is known of a petition circulating to repeal the heritage conservation district bylaw.
“For the record I did not initiate this petition, but am very much in favour of it,” her deputation stated. “I am aware that my proposed changes to the Beach Bum sign are approved… I do feel that a decision regarding the timeline for the changes should be prolonged until our efforts are exhausted. ”
The issue was already deferred from an April meeting to allow time to discuss changes to the sign to bring it into conformity with the design guidelines mandated on all buildings that are within the Picton Heritage Conservation District.
A change of location placed the store in the heritage district and permits were not obtained before the sign was posted.
Since, additional plans for a new sign did not met full compliance, but were approved by staff and the Heritage Advisory Committee with a note that “this particular case is not considered precedent setting by accepting the sign modifications which bring it closer, but not in full compliance with the Picton Heritage District Conservation Plan.”
All BIA members were invited to an education and information session on Monday evening where County staff hoped to answer questions about the rules, in effect for more than a year now.
Discussion of the value and conservation of heritage buildings began five years ago following the sudden demolition of an historic brick church on Picton Main. The destruction of the 135 year old building made the Heritage Canada Foundation’s list of the 10 worst losses of 2010. That complete story here: http://www.countylive.ca/?p=4573
Filed Under: Local News
I’m so tired of hearing about the old brick church! It was a rectangular structure of brick, nothing more. It was inaccessible, the wind blew through it making it a nightmare to heat with the high open ceiling. Plumbing and wiring was shot. The former church congregation ran not walked away from it. It was heritage insignificant other than age. Some structures need to fall as you can’t save them all. This was an example of one that needed to drop. RIP
Off topic as Dennis is so quick to point out however to clarify a few things… we do not know just what bill of goods the the brick church owners signed for with Real Estate.. Was it their intentions to build in low rental apartments or perhaps rent floor space to other business owners and Council of the day said No Way! That kind of left them with no options and demolition was their only way out to decrease all the expenses I mentioned before. The property is worth more than the building ever was.
And Dennis, don’t jump to conclusions, Stand your Ground is also a advertising slogan used by a shoe store in Kingston! Scary eh? Also was the demo operator a “crook” before or after he knocked down the church?
Oh, and I’m on side with the Beach Bum owner.In this case it’s only a sign and the cost to change is relatively low I guess.. However this is only one example of what other new business operators will face.You think the downtown is dieing? Wonder why.
Wow.
Repealing the HCD bylaw has nothing to do with disregard for heritage.
Is it OK to enact a bylaw then absolve yourself from any further involvement ie; funding, communication.
Is it OK to enact a bylaw and expect everyone else to follow it but not follow it yourself?????
A small business owner pays the $100 sign permit fee but the LCBO does not have a permit or pay for a permit for a new sign at their temporary location.
A designated heritage site is painted without authorization but no retaliatory measures taken.
Unconfirmed, but a downtown business’ permit fees were waived due to construction but no other businesses are receiving any break for lost revenue during the construction.
Several businesses on Main St. do not have any type of permit for new signage erected but until someone complains about that sign, it doesn’t matter as our bylaws are complaint driven.
It’s more about inconsistencies in the governance of this community.
Can I put out a few tables in the parking spaces out front because as someone above said, not much happens in January and February.
A short list……
Government inconsistencies, that’s the crux of it.
It’s a safe bet that 100 years from today no one will start a petition to save our new LCBO as a heritage building or any similar examples of today’s architecture. Those so-called zealots you criticize Hildedisregard want to save historic buildings the like of which we will never again see in Picton. Cheers to those like Alex Fida who work to save the architecture that makes our town special. The old brick church may have been HER building but I question her right to inflict the demolition man she chose on our town. The county is a tourist destination in part because of its architectural charm. Spas like The Manse and Claramount are a draw and proof that there are people out there with the money to restore and repurpose them. The Legion is another example of a fine old home they may get a new lease on life. Without the heritage buildings on Main Street we would have a sad streetscape with little to offer but flat-topped modern atrocities. Maybe some fine tuning is needed in regard to the heritage advisory committee and certain nit-picking restrictions, but it is needed and deserves support. Old buildings are more than bricks and mortar. They represent our history and for those of us who have roots in the county they have value. This does not make us sentimental fools as the naysayers suggest. If their vision is of a Main Street lined with small, efficiency buildings devoid of character they lack any real appreciation of the story of our town.
Glad you picked up on that. I used the phrase:”Stand your ground”, very literally. An old expression predating any gun groups of lobbies.
I used the phrase to contrast or correct the popular myth that violence is an acceptable solution to socio-political problems, in complete contrast to our type of fighting for democracy and freedom, which is an open non-violent public intervention on government by the victims to restore the property and business rights lost through bylaw 3286-2013, in this case. It takes courage and grit to stand up for your rights and freedoms, and to redress government when it fails to uphold those rights and freedoms. We are following a political process that ends in a petition to government to do the right thing. The petition is on the street and anyone can sign at Beach Bum in the County, Town and Country Video, or the Naval Marine Archives. We welcome signatures of support for the repeal of the bylaw.
I also used it intentionally to inspire younger men and women to become community activists because this is where the real fights for freedom, justice, and democracy are being fought, not in some foreign land to advance a foreign empire. There are many excellent opportunities right here to help grow your country by standing up to bad government, by developing peaceful political processes instead of violent ones. This is where we defend Canadian rights and freedoms, right here on our sidewalks and in County Council Chambers. I invite everyone, from all backgrounds to participate now.
Sign the petition to repeal and correct.
Steve you are so correct with your comments! I am so sick of these heritage zealots trying to tell property owners what they can do with their property. They had plenty of opportunity to buy that old church but no–they simply wanted to dictate to the owner what she could do with HER property! As a result, County council had to rush out and accommodate the mouth pieces with these ridiculous heritage by-laws. Leave the Beach Bum alone and rescind that nonsensical by-law!
It is totally a red herring to make an issue out of who she hired to tear down the church! She was fully justified in doing so!
Ah, I see now where you are coming from – “Stand Your Ground” is the slogan for a number of right wing American gun lobbyists. In the State of Florida, this slogan is used to promote carrying your fire arm on your hip. It was also used as Robert Zimmerman’s defense after shooting an unarmed young black man. You are deluding yourself if you think these words have anything to do with democracy. But to apply them in this discussion about heritage – well, you have just lost my respect and interest. I’m done.
Numbers pretty much tell the truth about support for built heritage in the County. Everyone loves it, but exceedingly few are willing to make a genuine effort to share responsibility for it by contributing directly to upkeep etc…
Primary stakeholders are property and business owners on Picton’s Main Street in the Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Secondary stakeholders are all other County residents. Tertiary stakeholders visit us for short times.
The 3 mandatory public meetings about the heritage district were very poorly attended, and the data is difficult to recover from County planning. The County claims that fewer than 250 people attended 3 public info meetings or responded to an online survey (electronic responses) prior to the bylaw. Assuming a PEC pop of 25,000, they were able to engage less than 1% of the County on this important heritage preservation step. It was presented as the much needed solution to both the unexpected demolition event of the old church, and revitalization of the historic business district on Main Street. Heritage promoters make many empty promises. They promised me in my living room that the only way the HCD would proceed was if they had fully informed the primary stakeholders of the negative legal repercussions from the bylaw, and that there would be a full consensus of primary stakeholders. Neither came true. So much for promoters promises.
Our survey of primary stakeholders conducted before the HCD bylaw was passed, shows that 84% rejected the HCD concept for many reasons, mostly red tape. County staff rejected our survey findings as hearsay at first, but we had real signatures on paper, not electronic patterns.
During the so called study period, County sent out more than 190 notices to primary stakeholders informing them of the plan to designate Picton’s Main Street. They received 19 responses back. Less than 10% of primary stakeholders were interested, and a majority rejected it.
The so called study period was set up to evaluate the heritage inventory on Picton’s Main Street. Eleven buildings on Main had been previously designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. These high value heritage buildings were already protected. But another 73 heritage type buildings had to be evaluated and graded, and takes considerable time. The evaluation was never done, or the values were so low that they were hidden from us, because they cannot find the evaluation data in Planning. The evaluation data is raison d’etre for the HCD, without which there is no heritage reason for designating anything. You need to know the value of the heritage inventory before you can make a rational, intelligent decision about how much effort, expense, pain, etc will be required to protect it.
About 40% of the properties in the HCD are non-contributing modern buildings or empty lots, but made subject to the same toxic HCD bylaw. So innocent bystanders are forced to lose their property rights along with heritage owners, and victimized unfairly by the same bylaw. This is a form of growing abuse of primary stakeholders. What happens but goes mostly unnoticed, is a process of conversion whereby the heritage property owner who was master (or mistress) in his own home before designation, is robbed of his traditional property rights and is no longer master of his own property. He is then forced to take on the role of custodian of the heritage property now controlled by the County and province.
Henceforth, the owner must report to Shire Hall, any non-trivial changes he wishes to make to the County’s heritage property.
Who’s at risk in the County of losing their property rights? Pretty much anyone who owns property that is coveted by heritage fans. Properties in the country are also at risk even if they have little obvious heritage value. If there is a nice old stone wall, a split rail fence, a waterfall, a lovely view, or landscape feature, it too can be designated without the owners consent.
There is where the phrase; “Stand your ground” is most meaningful. This is where democratic values and principles are really defended, respected, and upheld.
Have your opinion – I just happen to think that heritage structures are important. The church, if not designated a heritage structure, should have been and remember the person hired to demolish it was convicted – maybe the owner should have been too?? Anyway, this article is about the Beach Bum sign, any thoughts on that?
The old brick church had no heritage designation, or heritage interest attached. It was an old inaccessible, money pit. No one give a rats a.s about it until a hole was pounded through the wall. The owner had every right to knock it down as no one else had a penny invested.
ADJ – Well, I think you answered your own question – the “owner” is responsible for the carrying costs for their property – as we all are. No one forced them to buy a church, so they have to take whatever comes with the territory. But hiring a crook to do the demolishing and with the way that it was done does not deserve any level of understanding, sympathy nor support from the community. This example does show why such protection is needed for historic structures and I am all for it.
Wouldn’t be wonderful if the heritage committee would have taken over the costs of maintaining a derelict,empty “heritage” building (brick church) as in the taxes,the water/sewer connection fees, perhaps the security and safety plus any liability insurance in case someone trespasses and is hurt…floor collapses, ceiling falls on them etc. I believe the owner has to shoulder these costs. So,,rather than Joe Public being asked to quote Dennis “bend over a little more” Heritage could absorb these costs until the building is sold.Why should the owners be burdened with all the expenses and for how long?
I agree it was bad timing to demolish it on a Sunday and in the fashion it was done without proper permits but that’ another story.
To Steve Staniek – I’m not sure that I agree with most of what you have said. Here are some of my reasons why- – – a few years ago, this community held a number of what were then entitled “Round Table Discussions.” These discussions took place over an extended period of time and at every meeting preserving our HERITAGE was certainly at the top of the list as to what people wanted for PEC. This point of view was expressed by both new and not so new residents. Older residents described it as not losing their way of life – and who could argue with that? So I have to question just what “government and private surveys” are you referring to? I have never heard of nor seen such surveys. Can you provide us with a web link to check this out?
I also attended the All Candidates debate during the last municipal election – hosted by the BIA. I know for a fact that they were very keen on promoting the downtown’s heritage – so I would be very interested in seeing any info that states otherwise. Just for the record, I am not a business person, but I am a rural taxpayer.
What I do agree with you about are some of the basics – I don’t believe that most residents were aware that “Heritage” was going to be an additional expense and nor that it would require a Council appointed committee. But let’s be fair here – there are many smaller communities that were gutted during the 1960;s and 70s and they look like hell – so some kind of “official org.” is needed to protect it – thus a provincially approve Heritage Committee exists in most towns and cities. Also, I too question the Downtown Business commitment – they want the taxpayers to foot the bill, but not so ready to step to the front of the line themselves. Now to give a balanced opinion, I have to ask how many buildings are owned by absentee landlords, who don’t care about anything other than the rent? So to make “downtown heritage” work properly,the municipality has to go after the landlords and to get them to part with some cash – either willingly or not. But despite these so called surveys and potentially conflicting political entities out there – isn’t protecting what is here now worth it?
Look at the uproar over the Methodist Church that was illegally demolished several years ago. The vast majority of the public were outraged – so in order to stop that kind of destruction, maybe we all have to bend a little more than what we want to and work toward something a whole lot better. Right? Look at Merry Old England – do you think there anyone could have bull dozed over a church? If they did, their ghost would be stuck at the cross roads.
Steve, just an excellent commentary!
I couldn’t agree with you more Steve
SHOCKING HERITAGE FACTS:
Government and private surveys show that less than 1% of County residents actively support built heritage.
FYI- 84% of the business owners on Main Street formally rejected the HCD concept from its inception as painfully useless, regulatory nonsense that protects nothing, and benefits no one, while shoving another layer of new government down the throats of very angry business owners. The failures of the HCD are too numerous and embarrassing to mention here, but stay posted, my report is coming.
So about 250 property and business owners lost control over their properties and businesses without compensation, or gratitude from PEC council. Toxic government disrespects the will of the people, and produces victims needlessly. There are many painless ways to preserve built heritage, making it unnecessary to put a legal gun to the heads of owners in order to take legal control of their properties. It’s a clear example of legalized theft and government creep at its worst.
Q – How do you suppose those heritage buildings survived all these years?
A – For hundreds of years, private heritage buildings have been: constructed, owned, maintained, protected, and improved by their owners, with zero help from government, or drive by heritage fans.
Heritage fans come in several categories based on how much they really care about heritage. Everyone wants to have a say, but few are ready to back their demands by contributing in concrete ways to protect and preserve built heritage. Heritage cheerleaders on the sidelines are never really in the preservation game until they contribute substantially. They reject the complaints of heritage owners while they moan and complain expecting property owners to do it all for them. Owners preserve, while government and fans merely talk about preserving. Most heritage lovers want to see their favourite buildings stand forever, even unsafe carcasses like the old church on Main Street, long after they’re they stopped serving anyone. Outraged heritage fans only have themselves to blame over the loss of the old church because they raised their voices instead of their hands and wallets to save the old relic. It became a sad, blight on the landscape that no one wanted anymore. It is respectful to retire buildings back to earth when their job is over.
Loud and demanding heritage fans expect everyone else to do the difficult, expensive, and ongoing work of preserving old buildings that heritage fans claim some ownership over, just because the buildings were part of the environment. Seeing is not owning.
Anyone can earn the right to have a say in heritage preservation by contributing to the work. No work, no say. I think that’s the kind of fair exchange that County people understand and respect.
Selfish and inconsiderate heritage fans think nothing of inflicting legally binding, regulatory burdens and pain on others just so they can enjoy a few nostalgic moments. Reality informs us that memories and streetscapes change every day, and nothing is frozen in time.
So if you want a say in what happens to the heritage buildings on Picton’s Main Street, you are cordially invited to open your wallets, and roll up your sleeves, grab tools and materials, and spend your Saturdays and Sunday repairing, maintaining, and improving those buildings that you love and support.
One last thing, many people, especially young people do not want to live in the past, preferring to move ahead. Think of them too.
I know that I am as guilty as anyone, but man are we off topic. From sidewalk patios to the Royal – all good for a discussion, but it is the sign issue that this article is about. Granted, I am only looking at it from my point of view as a taxpayer, however, the store owner has had her chance to reverse the by-law and failed – so let’s stop all the delaying tactics and get on with a new sign and a new topic.
The owner of the Royal will never tell the Council to take a hike because Council will do whatever he wants!! One person has commented about McFarland Home being in such a mess over the last few years. Why doesn’t council set an example– advertise those jobs at McFarland Home as full-time jobs!! Who can survive on a part-time job today! No wonder there is such a high turn-over of employees! Instead of pestering everyone with passing petty by-laws that are next to impossible to enforce, help the established businesses, farmers and local folk looking for full–time work! Council is looking like such twits these days!
Hockeyman – read my comment more carefully. I highly doubt that patios are going to be dismantled prior to winter – if they are, then the public should be made aware of that. My point was to highlight that if the one at the County Canteen remains, it will cause problems for on street snow removal and for pedestrians. Hockeyman, you need to learn how to duck more quickly – how’s the bruising?
Dennis,give your head a shake.patio in the winter.ha ha
But Dennis, if as suggested Main Street was closed off just for foot traffic and a culinary and shopping experience for our ever present tourists, patios would be a non issue. It could be very beautiful. Perhaps more thought should have gone into design and what the long term use was intended for.
The problem that I see with the patio at the County Canteen is the design and location – not the concept! First, parking downtown is a tough scene – we can’t afford to lose parking spaces. Secondly, the design looks like a terrible after thought – it projects out into the road and it just looks out of place. From the looks of it, it is intended to be permanent – what happens during the winter and snow removal? Downtown is difficult enough for people to get around in after a snow fall – snow removal drivers will end up either hitting this patio or piling snow on it and forcing more snow to be piled out further into the road. Either way, summer or winter this patio has got to go!
Argyle makes a strong point. Since most of downtown is focused primarily for the tourist rather than local, why didn’t the design capture that so all business advantaged. Someone threw out a walking street with no traffic.
A few years ago there were complaints because Beach Bum had racks of clothing on the sidewalk. Now it’s okay to take up two parking spaces and force pedestrians to detour. We seem to be getting a lot more lenient.
Like Chris do you have a voice as your two year old story does not mention anything about a restaurant being able to take up two valuable parking spaces, reducing the sidewalk walking area by 60% plus adding two tables right on the sidewalk. Your argument doesn’t reflect the whole issue regarding the Country Canteen.
I agree Argyle. Where was the design planning. Other than new, nothing much has changed.
Go to downtown Kingston and see how the patio areas were incorporated into the street and sidewalk design. The sidewalks are much wider in front of businesses that required patio areas. There is lots of room for pedestrian traffic to get by of all types. It is to bad that this type of planning was not incorporated into the Main Street makeover.
If you look back at the story from 2014, I believe it’s open to all the restaurants. Let them make the money while they can, because not much happens in January and February.
Even if they are paying for the space, what if other restaurants decide to seek the same privilege? They should not have been allowed to encroach on the sidewalk. It’s ridiculous to re-route pedestrians on a boardwalk so that a handful of tourists can enjoy their food and beverages in the blazing sun.
Do you suppose the county canteen might be paying for those spaces.If people with wheelchairs,walkers and electric scooters can navigate on a cruise ship they can definitely can get through there and believe me I have seen many
I think there is a bit of a difference between what we see out front of the Bean Counter than the one in front of the County Canteen. Namely no parking spaces were taken in the creation of the B.C, patio and handicap people can negotiate it easily. Plus it looks natural in its setting with no intrusion into the public space. The County Canteen patio looks horrible, and it takes up two parking spaces. I like the idea of outdoor patios, but obviously they are not suited for every location – the County Canteen has proven that. Maybe Council has to go back to the drawing board or if the Canteen wants a patio, then put it out back like they did at Coach’s. There are options.
@ Michael. See County Live from 2014:
http://www.countylive.ca/?p=45050
Everyone should email the Mayor and ask him why the County Canteen has been given permission to block the sidewalk from people in wheelchairs and to take up two parking spots. Why then can the other retail business not do the same and then we would end up with no street parking. Make your voice heard and swamp his in box with emails as that’s the only way we will get his attention.
rquaiff@pecounty.on.ca
The McFarland Home is an absolute mess. They cannot fill positions, and that is for good reason. Good candidates will not apply to work in a poorly managed facility.
i agree below……why isnt council looking after the big issues. ie water rates (or affordability ) health care etc etc
oh dont forget our municipal run nursing home…..thats been run Shortstaffed for months….and left residetns with lack of care….. hellow county look after the residents properly thanks
susan but it will have to meet the new regs same as beach bum
Original lettered signage on the Royal was huge so I don’t expect an issue.
wait till you see how well the sign for the royal fits the size rules when that project is done mr sobara will tell council to take a hike
How many of these people on this committee are qualified to be in that position. If they want people to do these modifications maybe they should pay the taxes on the building
It’s a sign for God sake. Get over it. It’s not like they are painting the building.
Well, I have to admit that I have mixed feelings over this sign issue. When I first read about this,(months ago) I thought that Council had created “a tempest in a tea pot” and felt that this store owner should be left alone. I feel different now.
Everyone wants to preserve our heritage and to leave buildings and streets looking something like what we grew up with. Look at the mess that some communities have made of their downtown! This sign issue is the “litmus test” for council – and this store owner is playing the game(yes a game) of letting a petition decide the matter. I no longer believe it is just the matter of being able to afford a sign. The thing is, just like all of us, the owner is responsible for knowing the rules of her business – they were discussed and approved publicly with business input. This business owner could have the advice and support of the BIA and The Chamber of Commerce – but I wonder if she belongs to either? The point that I am trying to make is, this sign issue has rules to follow and the owner knew this and decided to ignore them. As a taxpayer, I don’t want anymore of my tax dollars spent on this argument and I support the Heritage Advisory Com. on this one. If council doesn’t stick to the rules now, at the beginning of the “Downtown Revitalization” – then it is a further waste of tax dollars. BEACH BUM – get a new sign and get on with life!
BOB, you are spot on with your comment “Small fish syndrome”. County council has suffered from this for a very long time.
This has got to be the most ridiculous situation EVER! Small fish syndrome, I think.
The LCBO (and its signs) are located outside of the downtown heritage preservation district.
The monstrous LCBO sign seems to have caused no issue. $$$ talk.
“Keep our land glorious and free”. Why can Council not look after the big issues like water rates, health care, affordable housing, roads and affordable taxes and otherwise get to h””l out of our way and let us conduct our lives and business without constant petty interference.
Another example why the common folk call it the Prince Edward County “Hysterical” Advisory Committee.
I agree with you, Emily! Can’t wait to see a human rights case filed by a disable person not being able to maneuver on the sidewalk through an unnecessary extended patio!
Awful way to treat this longtime business. Ok for a bar to take up the whole sidewalk however! This Council is becoming very disappointing. And we still have to fork up thousands to defend their council size debacle.
All of this is a huge waste of time and our tax dollars!