A local businessman isn't ruling out taking court action to keep a Pepsi sign on his property.

At Tuesday evening's council meeting, a unanimous vote by council confirmed a March 9 order by staff that Northland Beverages owner Con Lattin remove the Pepsi sign on his vacant Fourth Avenue lot. At the same time, staff were also directed to continue enforcing the zoning bylaw to remove the sign.

Outside council chambers following Tuesday's vote, Lattin told reporters he would have to "digest" the situation before deciding whether to take down the sign or move the issue forward.

Asked if he is considering court action, Lattin replied: "I haven't disconsidered it, let's put it that way. It's still an option."

The legal argument over the sign has already been presented at the city level by Peter Sandiford, an articled student with Davis LLP, joining Lattin in his presentations to council on the matter.

Sandiford has argued Lattin's plans for the property, which have been drawn up, represent the intended use required under the bylaw for a sign advertising that product to be placed on the property.

City staff also received a legal opinion. It argued a development permit is needed to show the intended use for the site in order for a sign to be placed there.

Sandiford has countered the bylaw doesn't set out that a development permit is needed. Rather, it simply states that it needs an intended use.

Lattin has also frequently argued the site has been used since 1941 for the sale of Pepsi products. Most recently, the Midnight Sun Coffee Roasters sold the product before the building it shared with The Nest used furniture and appliance shop burned to the ground in 2005.

"I really don't know what (council is) thinking because to me, our lawyer pointed out to us if the intent is there, the intent is there and they didn't seem to cover that part," Lattin said last night.

Before casting their votes supporting the order, a number of councillors voiced their reluctance in favouring the order.

"I have to support this removal order because of the way the bylaw is written, but I do so with reservations," Coun. Florence Roberts said.

If the city is to enforce the bylaw, she argued, it must also be prepared to follow the regulations.

Signs advertising whether the city is collecting garbage or compost that week don't seem to meet the regulations, she pointed out.

In an interview following the meeting, Roberts said that while she doesn't think the city needs to get rid of signs advertising garbage and compost weeks, they need to fit within the bylaw and be better maintained.

"We should be setting an example here and cleaning up our own backyard," she said during council discussion. The situation could serve as the start of a campaign to remind businesses and individuals of the regulations and the city's enforcement of them, she added.

Roberts went on to say the happenings around the sign seemed to be "extreme in action and not the most amicable resolution process.

"Mr. Lattin is responsible for this, as we are."

Coun. Doug Graham said he too has a "certain amount of sympathy" for Lattin.

"I don't believe the bylaw is as clear in its intent as it should be, but I also agree that we can't oppose this recommendation based on the information and the legal opinion that we received as councillors," he said.

It's also important, he said, that council support staff in enforcing bylaws. Until the bylaw is changed, Graham said, council has no choice but to support staff in enforcing the provision of the bylaw.

"It's unfortunate it came to this," he said.

When Mayor Bev Buckway looked at the issue, she said, she considered how she would handle it if it was a new business that had just arrived in town rather "someone that we know and love like Mr. Lattin."

With that, she decided to vote in favour of enforcing the bylaw.

"Again though, we have to support the bylaw; otherwise we could have a periphery of billboard signs scattered on every ... lot, " she said. "And we could be assured there would be something built on them, but we really have nothing to back that up."

Like the councillors who spoke, Coun. Dave Austin also argued the city has no choice but to support the bylaw.

Coun. Jeanine Myhre also voted in favour of enforcing the bylaw, but stated the city may want to look at the bylaw and come up a better definition around future use.

While Lattin took note of the comments of council members about their sympathy and reluctance in voting to enforce the order, he also pointed out that it's an election year.

Though going through court is one option after last night's vote, Lattin has also heard a suggestion he put a Pepsi machine under the sign to make it a legitimate use, he said.

"A lot of people don't realize advertising is a very, very large part of our operation," he said. "That's a big part of it and to me, that's being used for that.

"That (site has) been used for Pepsi since 1941. So you see, it's a vacant lot, but still, should not an owner be able to use that as part of his business? It's still owned by the same company that owns Pepsi."

Planning to get in touch with his lawyer once again on the matter, Lattin said cost will be a factor in whether he pursues court action.

Already, he said, he's spent a lot just dealing with the matter at the council level, though he would not say how much.

Councillors Dave Stockdale and Jan Stick were absent from last night's meeting.