A proposed new Orangeville sign bylaw has some area sign manufacturers upset over the suggested $300 licensing fee, especially since they have not previously been charged anything.

The fee has been proposed by the town's Sign Bylaw Review Committee, which consists of representatives from council, Town staff, the Business Improvement Area, Heritage Orangeville and local sign companies.

"One of the committee's most significant changes proposed for the bylaw is a new requirement that all sign manufacturers/installers that work in Orangeville be required to obtain an annual licence from the Town," reads a report from Planning Director James Stiver.

The annual fee is designed to help control which sign manufacturers are working in the town, to ensure they are qualified professionals.

The committee also thinks the licensing will provide the Town with upfront proof of liability, minimize the Town's exposure to liability, provide enforcement aid for violations of the bylaw (such as revoking or suspending a licence), provide accountability of the sign manufacturer, assure quality work and enhance public safety.

However, Marg McCarthy, president of McCarthy Signs Co. in Shelburne, says this new licensing fee will only hurt local business who are already complying with the Town, as they will be the ones who will apply for a licence and have to pass the cost on to customers.

"As a company who has been in business for over 25 years in this area and one who applies for permits, spends a tremendous amount of time and money on the proper installation equipment, trained staff, [and] sufficient insurance, I see this licence as a fine against us for doing a good job," she said in a letter to council.

At Monday's council meeting she said she's not really

opposed to the bylaw but sees a lot of holes in it and that it will only be a tax for those who comply with the bylaw, because firms that break the rules will continue to do so.

In her letter, Ms. McCarthy also asks why it should be necessary to have the licensing done annually.

"Established companies such as ours will not reduce their accountability by only registering once and be in compliance ongoing."

She also says it should be the owner of the sign who is held accountable for it.

As well, she says the criteria for a qualified professional are ambiguous. "Currently, in the industry, there is no provincial standard for sign makers or for installers. Will the Town of Orangeville come up with this designation?"

Other business owners who spoke during the meeting also had a problem with the fee.

Mr. Stiver said the fee would merely recover costs associated with staff time for administration, processing and any legal fees.

Other changes proposed by the committee listed in the report include:

 introducing new regulations and permit requirements pertaining to banners. Banners have been evolving to be relied up on as a semi-permanent supplement or as additional signage or a business that is presently unregulated. A on banners in the Downtown Heritage District is also proposed;

 requiring street addresses to be prominently displayed on all new ground signs, such that the address is visible from the street. This recommendation was proposed in the Commercial Urban Design Study;

 new regulations for the Downtown Heritage District that require sign materials to be, or appear like, wood. (Other materials may be allowed if it is determined that they are appropriate to the age of the building.) Also, the colours, fonts, shapes, materials and scale are to be historically sensitive and consistent with a set of guidelines to be prepared by Heritage Orangeville. The obstruction of significant architectural facade features in the District, including windows, brackets, sills, decorative masonry and cornice, will be prohibited;

 requiring illuminated window signs to be subject to the issuance of a permit and restricting all window signs to a maximum of 25 per cent of the window. Issues have arisen recently regarding the visual impact of unregulated window signage. With the proposed regulations, window signs would still be permitted above the first storey of a building, provided they are not illuminated, other than ones reading "open". Furthermore, illuminated window signs at any level would still be prohibited in residential and institutional zones;

 limiting the location of wall signage to the defined "sign band" area of a building only, to avoid the unsightly appearance of scattered signage that can result in multi-tenant buildings;

 restricting the number of portable signs on a property at any given time to one for every four businesses and requiring that portable signs be on the same property as the business they are advertising to avoid an over abundance of this type of signage. This is consistent with the recommendations of the Commercial Urban Design Study. Portable signs that advertise an event may still be located on a property other than that on which the event is to take place, provided that they are not in place for longer than 60 days; and,

 restricting "beer logo" flags and strings of coloured pennants to areas that are not visible from the street.

Mayor Drew Brown wanted to know if the Town project "BOB" (Banners on Broadway) would be affected by the changes.

Mr. Stiver assured him it wouldn't since they are not a form of advertising, and under the definitions in the bylaw the banners are technically not a banner.

"I hope this doesn't mean we have to change BOB to FOB [Flags on Broadway]," the mayor jokingly said.

Another report will be coming back to council with answers to questions raised during the meeting and from correspondence received.