A Cambridge business owner seeking revisions to Puslinch’s sign bylaw likely did not receive the response he was hoping for last week.
On Sept. 3 Paul Lawson, of Lawson Mobile Signs, told council he is opposed to the township’s bylaw, because it is “outdated” and violates “freedom of expression” because it bans mobile signs.
Lawson said the Puslinch bylaw violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and also contravenes a 1993 Supreme Court decision involving the City of Peterborough.
But councillors were not buying his arguments.
“I couldn’t disagree with you more,” councillor Matthew Bulmer told Lawson. “I’m quite comfortable with the current wording of the bylaw.”
Bulmer explained the court decision to which Lawson was referring was about posters, not signs, and trying to pass it off as otherwise is dangerous.
He stressed the township is not banning signs at all, but is simply trying to monitor which types are used in the municipality.
“I think your argument falls flat, but I’m glad you brought it to us,” Bulmer said, noting he is in favour of bringing the Puslinch document “more in-line” with the county’s sign bylaw.
Chief Building Official and Bylaw Enforcement Officer Dave Thompson said he is currently reviewing both bylaws with that goal in mind, and would soon be reporting to council on the matter.
Councillor Dick Visser, sitting in as mayor for the absent Brad Whitcombe, said the bylaw is necessary because “there’s a proliferation of signs out there.” Lawson agreed there is a problem, but said it can be regulated.
He said he was forced to take down one sign in the township already and wanted the issue addressed.
Clerk Brenda Law said that regardless of the contents of the township’s bylaw, Lawson did not have permission to erect any signs in the municipality.
She told Lawson Puslinch does not have a large staff to enforce bylaws like those in place in Guelph and Cambridge, which, she said, would
not work in Puslinch and likely do not work in those cities either.
Lawson admitted those city bylaws do not work, but stressed it is all about regulation, not banning.
Thompson said even if the signs were not banned, they have to be placed at least 27 metres from the centre of roadways, so most mobile and pole signs are contravening the bylaw anyway.
Lawson claimed Wellington County has a permit process for mobile signs, but that was refuted when Thompson produced a copy of the county’s sign bylaw that states mobile signs are prohibited on county roads.
Council made no promises about updating its sign bylaw other than to review it and make it more similar to the county bylaw.
