New digital signs can't plug in before Bradford bylaw review

'I don’t want Bradford to look like a cheap knockoff of a Vegas side street,' Coun. Joe Giordano says

Bradfordtoday.ca
April 21, 2023
Patrick Bales

A local advertiser will have to wait a little longer to find out if his second shot at a new digital billboard in downtown Bradford will see the light of day.

Mark Snaper of Eye Candy Ads was hopeful Bradford West Gwillimbury council would OK the placement of a digital sign at 105 Holland St. E. that would feature first- and third-party advertising, but he won’t be able to flip the switch until the town has had a chance to review its entire sign bylaw -- at the very least.

But that’s going to leave local entrepreneurs in the dark, as he explained right now he has more interest from businesses looking to advertise than space available.

“All my billboards right now are pretty much completely full and it’s very difficult to maintain any space that’s possible for anybody to add more,” Snaper told councillors this week. As part of his deputation, he gave councillors a list of businesses he canvassed prior to the meeting that are on board with his designs on expanding.

“(There are) 30 signatures from 30 business owners asking for different opportunities to do advertising,” Snaper said. “I wish I could help, but I’ve been full for quite a while with a lot of small businesses in town. If I had more space, I would absolutely give it to them.”

He had support from Mayor James Leduc, who was one of the candidates in the 2022 municipal election who utilized digital advertising from Eye Candy as part of his campaign.

“Our small business community does need advertising (and) this is a way to get advertising for them at a very inexpensive cost,” Leduc said. “I really do think this something our business community can look forward to.”

Snaper first tried to get the sign approved in December. Then, his proposal called for replacing the sign currently found in front of 105 Holland St. E. with a 5.74-metre-tall electronic sign that would feature both first-party advertisements for the business located on the property and third-party advertising for other companies, individuals or initiatives.

Taller than what’s permitted, given the lot frontage of 15 metres and that the total sign face area of 14.6 square metres is triple what the bylaw currently allows, Snaper required to apply for a variance. Councillors were deadlocked on the issue and the application was denied on the tie.

Eye Candy’s new application has some changes in dimensions -- a little more than half a metre shorter, but a total sign area of 14.88 square metres, an increase of 28 square metres -- but still doesn’t conform to the current bylaw.

Before approval, the application required four variances for height, area, types of advertising and setbacks. Town staff recommended moving forward with approval, as the application ultimately conformed with the spirit of Section 10.1 of the sign bylaw, which stated the proposed sign shouldn’t alter the essential character of the area, adversely affect adjacent properties and public safety or be prohibited by any town or county bylaw.

Some councillors were adamant, however, that it would in fact alter the character of the downtown and adversely affect adjacent properties and public safety, with an at times tense back-and-forth between Snaper and Coun. Joe Giordano during Snaper’s deputation.

As council debated approval during committee-of-the-whole, Giordano suggested a deferral on the decision, but was adamant in his distaste for digital advertising downtown.

He listed off the downtowns of Klineberg, Unionville and Newmarket as areas downtown Bradford should want to emulate. Putting up digital advertising, in his opinion, takes the town in the opposite direction.

“While we transform our downtown, I think the signage needs to reflect we want our downtown to be,” Giordano said. “I don’t want Bradford to look like a cheap knockoff of a Vegas side street.”

That opinion was shared by Coun. Ben Verkaik, who voted against approval in December and said his vote would remain the same. Coun. Jonathan Scott pointed to Eye Candy’s digital sign at the corner of Miller Park Drive and Holland Street West -- which Giordano argued was a mistake of the previous council, in his opinion -- and suggested council “should follow our own precedents on these sorts of variances.”

Scott was the first to bring an amendment to the motion that would see a moratorium on new digital sign variance requests until the town’s sign bylaw could be reviewed and updated. Ultimately, that amendment was separated from the original motion to ensure that the review could proceed regardless of council’s direction on the Eye Candy application.

Councillors deferred the decision on the Eye Candy request until staff completes the review of the sign bylaw they were directed to conduct through the revised committee recommendation.

Digital signs that do not require a variance from the current bylaw are not impacted by the recommendation.