Sign Variance Committee
The full agenda, as filed
All 3 items in the clerk’s order. Each carries the city’s own words: the staff recommendation, what the body decided, and its status. Nothing below is written by us.
SB12.1adopted
PATTISON Outdoor Advertising LP (the "Applicant") has made an application for four variances, each subject to two conditions, required to allow the Chief Building Official ("CBO") to issue a sign permit for one third-party electronic ground sign with four sign faces, displaying both electronic static copy and static copy (the "Proposed Sign") at 1987 Kipling Avenue (the "Subject Premises"). The Proposed Sign would be located along the western frontage of the Subject Premises, contain four sign faces, two on each side of the sign, and would be perpendicular to, and viewed by, traffic travelling northbound and southbound along Kipling Avenue. The Proposed Sign would have a maximum height of 10.0 metres above grade and is proposed to contain a combination of third-party electronic static copy on sign faces measuring 3.03 metres by 5.91 metres with a total sign face area of 17.90 square metres; and first party static copy on sign faces measuring 1.50 metres by 2.70 metres with a total sign face area of 4.05 square metres. To allow the CBO to issue a sign permit, the Proposed Sign requires variances to sections 694-22E, 694-25C(2)(a), 694-25C(2)(g) and 694-25C(2)(j) of the Sign By-law, each variance would be subject to two conditions. The Proposed Sign, the requested variances and the proposed conditions are further described in Attachment 1 to this report. After reviewing the Applicant's submissions and with additional investigation by City staff, the CBO has determined that there are not sufficient reasons to conclude that the eight required criteria in §694-30A of the Sign By-law have been established with respect to the two variances, subject to two conditions, as described further in Attachment 1.
The Sign Variance Committee: 1. Refused to grant the variances to sections 694-22E, 694-25C(2)(a), 694-25C(2)(g) and 694-25C(2)(j), each subject to two conditions, as required to allow for the issuance of a permit respecting the erection and display of the Proposed Sign, as further described in Attachment 1 to the report (October 2, 2024) from the Project Director, Business Transformation, Citywide Priorities, Toronto Building.
Staff recommendation as filed
The Chief Building Official and Executive Director, Toronto Building, recommends that: 1. The Sign Variance Committee refuse to grant the variances to sections 694-22E, 694-25C(2)(a), 694-25C(2)(g) and 694-25C(2)(j), each subject to two conditions, as required to allow for the issuance of a permit respecting the erection and display of the Proposed Sign, as further described in Attachment 1 to this report.
SB12.2adopted
This report responds to an appeal of the decision of the Chief Building Official and Executive Director, Toronto Building ("CBO") concerning a Sign Variance application for two first party signs (the "Proposed Signs"). The Sign Variance was originally applied by BADER GROUP Inc. (the "Applicant"), on behalf of Kennedy Towers Development Inc. (the "Owner"). The Sign Variance application sought three variances, each subject to one condition, to allow for one first party electronic ground sign (the "Proposed Sign 1"), and three variances to permit one first party electronic wall sign (the "Proposed Sign 2"), described further in Attachment 1. The Applicant indicated that the Proposed Signs are intended to offer identification and information for Rama Gaming House, a business located on property municipally known as 991 Kennedy Road (the "Subject Premises"). Notice of the application for the Proposed Sign Variance was provided to the public, and the CBO conducted a written hearing in accordance with the requirements of the Sign By-law. After conducting a review in accordance with the requirements of the Sign By-law, the CBO made a decision to refuse to grant the requested variances on the basis that the Proposed Sign Variance did not meet all of the mandatory criteria listed in section 694-30.A of the Sign By-law. Specifically, the CBO determined that the Applicant failed to establish that the Proposed Signs would be compatible with the development of the premises and surrounding area, support the Official Plan objectives for the subject premises and surrounding area, not adversely affect adjacent premises, not alter the character of the premises or surrounding area and not be contrary to the public interest. After the issuance of the CBO's decision refusing to grant the variances requested for the Proposed Signs, the Applicant filed an appeal of the CBO's decision. As a result of the Applicant filing an appeal of the CBO's decision, the Sign Variance Committee ("SVC") is now conducting an appeal de novo, meaning that the SVC are required to conduct an evaluation to determine whether the Applicant has demonstrated that the Proposed Signs meet all eight criteria, based on the information presented to the Sign Variance Committee. The SVC may decide to refuse or grant the variances requested by the Applicant, or to grant different variances, or impose conditions which the Applicant did not include in their application. It is the CBO's opinion that it has not been established that the Proposed Signs would meet all eight established criteria as set out in §694-30A of the Sign By-law, and that the Sign Variance Committee should not grant the variances sought by the Applicant.
The Sign Variance Committee: 1. Refused to grant the requested variances sections 694-14.E, 694-15.A and 694-20.I, each subject to one condition, as required to allow for the issuance of a permit respecting the erection and display of Proposed Sign 1, as well as the requested variances to sections 694-14.E, 694-15.A and 694-20.I, as required to allow for the issuance of a permit respecting the erection and display of Proposed Sign 2, as further described in Attachment 1 to the report (October 1, 2024) from the Project Director, Business Transformation, Citywide Priorities, Toronto Building.
Staff recommendation as filed
The Chief Building Official and Executive Director, Toronto Building, recommends that: 1. The Sign Variance Committee refuse to grant the requested variances sections 694-14.E, 694-15.A and 694-20.I, each subject to one condition, as required to allow for the issuance of a permit respecting the erection and display of Proposed Sign 1, as well as the requested variances to sections 694-14.E, 694-15.A and 694-20.I, as required to allow for the issuance of a permit respecting the erection and display of Proposed Sign 2, as further described in Attachment 1 to this report.
SB12.3adopted
This report responds to an appeal of the Chief Building Official and Executive Director, Toronto Building ("CBO") decision concerning a sign variance application for one first party wall sign, non-illuminated displaying static copy (the "Proposed Sign"). The Proposed Sign would be located on the east elevation of the building (on the mechanical penthouse), on the premises municipally known as 30 Widmer Street (the "Subject Premises"). The Proposed Sign would have one rectangular sign face, measuring 3.15 metres vertically by 7.11 metres horizontally, and overall height of approximately 158 metres. The Proposed Sign would identify and provide information for the hotel located on the Subject Premises. A sign variance was originally applied by Priority Permits on behalf of Pattison Sign Group (collectively known as the "Applicant"), who state they have been authorized by the owner of the Subject Premises, Hotel San Francisco, S.A. (the "Owner"). Notice of the application was provided to the public, and the Chief Building Official conducted a written hearing in accordance with the requirements of the Sign By-law. After conducting a review in accordance with the requirements of the Sign By-law, the Chief Building Official made a decision to refuse to grant the requested variances on the basis that the Proposed Sign did not meet all eight of the mandatory criteria. Specifically, the Chief Building Official determined that the Applicant failed to establish that the Proposed Sign described would be compatible with the development of the premises and surrounding area, would not alter the character of the premises or surrounding area and would not be contrary to the public interest. After the issuance of the Chief Building Official's decision denying the variances requested for the Proposed Sign, the Applicant filed an appeal of the Chief Building Official's decision. As a result of the Applicant filing an appeal of the Chief Building Official's decision, the Sign Variance Committee ("SVC") is now conducting an appeal de novo, meaning that the Sign Variance Committee are required to conduct an evaluation to determine whether the Applicant has demonstrated that the Proposed Sign meets all eight criteria, on the basis of the information presented to the Sign Variance Committee. The Sign Variance Committee may make a decision to refuse or grant the variances requested by the Applicant, or to grant different variances, or impose conditions which the Applicant did not include in their application. It is the Chief Building Official's opinion that it has not been established that the Proposed Sign would meet all eight established criteria as contained at §694-30A of the Sign By-law, and that the Sign Variance Committee should not grant the variance sought by the Applicant, to allow for the Proposed Sign.
The Sign Variance Committee: 1. Refused to grant the variance to 694-21.D(5)(a) of Chapter 694, Signs, General, requested to allow for the issuance of a permit for the erection and display of the Proposed Sign on the Subject Premises, as described in detail in Attachment 1 of the report (October 1, 2024) from the Project Director, Business Transformation, Citywide Priorities, Toronto Building.
Staff recommendation as filed
The Chief Building Official and Executive Director, Toronto Building, recommends that: 1. The Sign Variance Committee refuse to grant the variance to 694-21.D(5)(a) of Chapter 694, Signs, General, requested to allow for the issuance of a permit for the erection and display of the Proposed Sign on the Subject Premises, as described in detail in Attachment 1 of this report.