Local artists got a victory on Tuesday, as Niagara-on-the-Lake town council’s general committee of the whole passed a motion exempting visual art from the town’s sign bylaw.
“This removes the barrier for art,” said Coun. Wendy Cheropita. “But it does not approve any particular project.”
The law also passed with an amendment that said the town would be looking into a public art policy to determine what would be allowed under the exemption.
The definition of visual art under this new rule is “original pieces of art” and “including but not limited to paintings, drawings, sculptures, photography and inflation art … which is used to reflect or engage the community.”
Advertising was excluded from the definition of visual art.
NOTL’s current sign bylaw bans the use of certain road signs by non-government groups and ordinary people. The bylaw is meant to prevent distractions for drivers and to keep the town aesthetically pleasing.
The sign bylaw specifically lays out 15 kinds of signs that the town does not allow. But until Tuesday, there had never been a specific exemption for signs that included visual art.
There had been a push by artists in NOTL to specifically exempt public art from this sign bylaw, with advocates saying they are not a distraction but a pleasing sight that improves the look and culture of the town.
For example, Ron Clavier, a local artist, advocated for a change to this law during a council meeting in late May, while he was promoting a public art project about the history of rural NOTL.
The argument from Clavier back in late May was that it would make the town more beautiful and enhance an appreciation of its history.
“This is not a sign,” Clavier said to council in late May. “We don’t want to distract people.”
The questions in council during the discussion on the exemption included one from Coun. Andrew Niven, who asked who would determine what visual art is.
“I would say that would be a role for our enforcement staff,” said NOTL interim chief administrative officer Bruce Zvangia.
“If it’s not building code or zoning, then the town doesn’t have any control over the process of public art,” he said.
Kirsten McCauley, director of community and development services with the town, said it may be possible to have a public art policy created to have some kind of approval process through council.
Niven said he’d be open to that if it created a way for council to control which art goes up. Cheropita also agreed with the idea that the town needs some control.
“Right now, it looks like people could just put up art anywhere without any process,” she said.
Coun. Gary Burroughs, who also asked a question about rules about “size, location, number, or approvals” of public art projects, wondered if public visual art would be permitted in the heritage district without approval.
“If it’s within the heritage conservation district, it would be looked at by our heritage staff who would determine whether it requires a heritage permit,” said McCauley.
Under the current sign bylaw, neon signs are already not allowed in the Queen-Picton area.
The visual art exemption and the amendment to create a public art policy both passed through council.
