Item - 2019.SB4.6

The Sign Variance Committee:

1. Refused the requested variances to subsections 694-21B(4)(a), 694-21B(4)(b) and 694-21B(4)(c) with respect to the Proposed Sign at the premises municipally known as 135 Fenelon Drive, as described in greater detail in Attachment 1 of the report (June 24, 2019) from the Manager, Sign By-law Unit, Toronto Building.

A decision of the Sign Variance Committee, in the case of a decision to refuse to grant a variance, is final and binding on the date the decision was issued; and in the case of a decision to grant a variance with conditions, the decision is final and binding 21 days after the date the decision was issued unless an application to consider is filed by the ward councillor in accordance with §694-30S of Chapter 694 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code.
 

This report addresses an appeal concerning three variances sought respecting one first party wall sign displaying static copy (the Proposed Sign). The Proposed Sign is to be located on portions of the north elevation between the 15th and 18th storeys of an existing 20-storey apartment building at 135 Fenelon Drive (the Subject Premises).

The Proposed Sign is to contain one rectangular sign face, directed north towards Highway 401 and towards vehicular traffic travelling south-bound on the Don Valley Parkway. The height of the Proposed Sign (the highest point of the sign measured from grade) would be 48.46 metres.  The Proposed Sign's sign face would have a bisecting line (horizontal dimension) of 12.19 metres and centre line (vertical dimension) of 9.14 metres, and would function to identify "Beaux Properties", the owner and manager of the apartment building on the premises, as well as advertise apartments available for rent within the building.

After conducting a review of the initial sign variance application made by N.K. Girdhar and Associates (the Applicant), a decision was made by the Chief Building Official and Executive Director, Toronto Building (the CBO) to refuse to grant the requested variances required for the erection and display of the Proposed Sign. Following this decision, an appeal was filed by the Applicant. The CBO has determined that the Applicant has not provided sufficient information to determine that the Proposed Sign meets all nine of the criteria established in §694-30A of the Sign By-law, which are required for a variance approval to be granted.

Specifically, insufficient information was provided to determine that the Proposed Sign is compatible with the development of the premises and surrounding area; supports Official Plan Objectives for the premises and surrounding area; does not alter the character of the premises or surrounding area; and is not contrary to the public interest. As such, the CBO does not support the Sign Variance Committee granting the requested variances for the Proposed Sign.