RE: Amendments to Agricultural Signage Provisions
Electoral Areas ‘A’, ‘C’, ‘D’, ‘E’, ‘F’ and ‘H’ Zoning Bylaw
Administrative Recommendation:
THAT Administration be instructed to proceed with the development of signage amendments to zoning bylaws; and THAT the proposed amendments be forwarded to each Advisory Planning Committee prior to consideration by the Board; and THAT Administration be instructed to organize two Public Meetings prior to consideration by the Board.
Proposal:
At its meeting of April 3, 2014, the Board directed staff to investigate a more comprehensive approach to signage in a separate report. Therefore, this report is to focus on the more limited proposed changes to signage related to the ongoing enforcement project. It was understood that through the enforcement process, some bylaw amendments may be identified and changes brought forward.
Background:
The Highway Signage Enforcement Project commenced in late 2012. Throughout 2013 and early 2014 MOTI and RDOS staff prepared an enforcement strategy, carried out an inventory of all signs south of Oliver to the USA border and sent out letters to sign and property owners. A public meeting was held on March 11, 2014 in Oliver. In mid-April, the MOTI advised that enforcement of highway signage was postponed until the fall of 2014 but that highway signage safety issues would be addressed on a case-by-case basis. In the meantime, the RDOS is to continue with enforcement of private property signage and letters are to be sent.

Since late 2013 there has been media coverage of the signage issue, letters written to local associations and to sign and property owners affected by potential enforcement, including written invitations to the March 11, 2014, public meeting.
To summarize public and stakeholder input received in late 2013 and 2014:
 Written and verbal public support for the signage enforcement initiative with highway clutter, safety and aesthetics most mentioned;
 Concerns from agricultural businesses, fruit stands, U-pick and wineries that the current signage regulations do not provide for enough signage on their property;
 Concerns from agricultural and other businesses that do not front on Highway 97 and are not currently permitted a third party sign;

The primary focus of public concerns at the March 11th Public Meeting related to signage for agricultural businesses, such as fruit stands, wineries/restaurants, u-pick and farm gate sales on-site and related to third party signage. This included comments about signs needing to be located before the fruit stand (from each direction) to allow travelling public adequate notice of the business, signs for businesses not located on the highway, signs not tall enough, more than 1 sign requested, fascia signs and related items
Analysis:

RDOS zoning bylaws provide very basic signage regulations in Section 7.20 (Section 7.19 in Electoral Area ‘H’) that are very consistent throughout the region.
Except for large signs that require a building permit, there is no sign permit process with applications, fees, inspection and enforcement in place in the RDOS as there is in most municipalities. Except for a one-time budget increase of $10,000 in 2012 for the signage enforcement project, ongoing staff resources for signage enforcement are very limited. Should there be a need for more detailed signage regulations, a sign permit process with staff resources will likely be required.

Edited from RDOS agenda material – to be discussed May 8th