{"id":749616,"date":"2026-06-20T14:18:18","date_gmt":"2026-06-20T14:18:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/749616\/"},"modified":"2026-06-20T14:18:18","modified_gmt":"2026-06-20T14:18:18","slug":"surrey-amends-sign-bylaw-surrey-now-leader","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/749616\/","title":{"rendered":"Surrey amends sign bylaw | Surrey Now-Leader"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>              Surrey amends sign bylaw<\/p>\n<p class=\"pubStamp\">Published 1:15 pm Friday, June 19, 2026<\/p>\n<p>Surrey council approved amendments to the city\u2019s sign bylaw on June 15 aimed at improving clarity, the sign permit approval process and reducing ambiguous regulations.<\/p>\n<p>Planning and development manager Ron Gill noted in a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.surrey.ca\/sites\/default\/files\/corporate-reports\/CR_2026-R126.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">corporate report<\/a> to council that the amendments \u201crespond to recurring interpretation challenges, reflect current signage practices and support business viability while maintaining appropriate controls to manage the visual impact of signs in Surrey.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Councillor Mandeep Nagra said that at the last meeting of the Development Approval Process Improvement Committee it was his understanding this would be discussed further before moving the new bylaw forward.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cI was surprised to see the report in the package so I guess my question is should we defer this back and maybe have one more discussion at the committee and then bring this report forward?\u201d he asked.<\/p>\n<p>Councillor Pardeep Kooner, chairwoman of that committee, said it was her understanding that this signage was separate.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cI think what we said we were going to discuss at the next meeting was in regards to the light-up signs, which would be a complete change in the bylaw and these are the smaller issues I think people are facing with their buildings and I think we will be moving forward on the discussion of changing the bylaw completely in regards to signs that light up if I\u2019m not mistaken.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Ron Gill confirmed her comments to be correct.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThis is kind of a phase one of our sign bylaw update,\u201d Gill told council. \u201cThis is just to do some housekeeping to permit some of the signs that businesses are requesting out there and cut down on the number of variances but there is a larger scope of work that is going to be undertaken shortly with our sign bylaw.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Gill noted Surrey\u2019s Sign Bylaw was adopted in 1999 and every so often undergoes housekeeping amendments.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cAs building scale and business signage needs have evolved, certain provisions of the Sign Bylaw no longer clearly reflect how signs are designed or applied for in practice, resulting in avoidable sign permit delays and requests for variances.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The new amendments define what an upper-level fascia sign is to account for those above a first storey. Gill noted the bylaw applied different requirements for signs located above a first storey though \u201cfirst storey\u201d wasn\u2019t defined.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThis resulted in unclear expectations for large buildings, such as warehouses that appear as several storeys from the exterior but only have one storey on the interior.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>With upper-level fascia signs now defined, Gill explained, city staff can apply the bylaw\u2019s provisions consistently, \u201caligning with current practice, and support businesses in applying for upper-level fascia signs without the need for a development variance permit.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cAdditional provisions for commercial and industrial signs will reflect this new definition,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n<p>Amendments to the rules for under-awning\/canopy signs will permit these parallel to a building face with limits on location and<\/p>\n<p>size, aligning with \u201cbroader industry trends for commercial signage.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cA limit is introduced so parallel under-awning\/canopy signs cannot be on the same fa\u00e7ade as a fascia sign and can only be a maximum of three metres wide, to reduce visual clutter and duplicate signage,\u201d Gill explained.<\/p>\n<p>Meantime, amendments to identification signs \u201cwill expand flexibility and remove duplication, while clarifying how identification signs can be used. Properties would no longer be limited to either a fascia identification sign or a free-standing identification sign,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cInstead, the amendments will allow an identification sign as a fascia sign and\/or a free-standing sign. Additional clarification is provided to allow up to one additional fascia sign on any fa\u00e7ade if that extra sign is an identification sign.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Housekeeping amendments throughout the bylaw clarify definitions and references, and also modify provisions to reduce ambiguity, remove duplication and improve consistency.<\/p>\n<p>Gill told council the amendments modernize the bylaw \u201cthrough targeted changes that improve<\/p>\n<p>clarity, support business signage and reduce unnecessary regulatory burden.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cApproval of these amendments will streamline sign permitting, increase consistency in application and maintain appropriate controls over signage in the city,\u201d he concluded. \u201cStaff will bring forward additional amendments to the sign bylaw over the course of the next year, to continue modernizing the city\u2019s regulations for signage.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Surrey amends sign bylaw Published 1:15 pm Friday, June 19, 2026 Surrey council approved amendments to the city\u2019s&hellip;\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":749617,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[194299],"tags":[49,48,87674],"class_list":["post-749616","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-surrey","tag-ca","tag-canada","tag-surrey"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/749616","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=749616"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/749616\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/749617"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=749616"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=749616"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=749616"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}