Item - 2022.SB16.3

The Sign Variance Committee:

1.  Refused to grant any of the four requested variances to sections 694-24.A(10), 694-24.A(16), 694- 25.C(2)(c), § 694-25.C(2)(d) required to allow for the issuance of a permit respecting the erection and display of the Proposed Sign at the property municipally known as 170 Brockport Drive as described in Attachment 1 to the March 9, 2022 Report 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.

Due to Construction Media (the "Applicant") has stated that they have been authorized by the owner of the property municipally known as 170 Brockport Drive (the "Subject Premises"), to apply for four variances required to allow for a permit to be issued for one third party electronic ground sign with two sign faces, displaying electronic static copy (the "Proposed Sign") at 170 Brockport Drive.

The Proposed Sign would be located along the south frontage of the Subject Premises, facing Belfield Road, in a westerly and easterly direction. It is proposed to have a maximum height of 7.62 metres, and two rectangular sign faces, in a “back to back” configuration, each with a maximum horizontal measurement of  5.79 metres (centre line) and maximum vertical measurement of 2.91 metres (bisecting line), with a maximum sign face area of 16.85 square metres. The Proposed Sign is described further in Attachment 1.

Four variances to Chapter 694 would be required to allow the Chief Building Official ("CBO") to issue the sign permit for the Proposed Sign. The requirements of Chapter 694 which have been requested to be varied, and the proposed varied requirements are summarized below:

1) § 694-24.A (10) - A third party sign shall not be erected or displayed or caused to be erected or displayed in whole or in part within 400 metres of any limit of Highway 27 from Highway 401 to Steeles Avenue, transferred from the Province by Order in Council 535/97; Proposed New Requirement: The Proposed Sign would be erected or displayed or caused to be erected or displayed in whole or in part within 22.0 metres of any limit of Highway 27, specifically the Highway 27 off-ramp onto Belfield Road.

2) § 694-24.A (16) - A third party sign shall not be erected or displayed or caused to be erected or displayed in whole or in part within 400 metres of any limit of any portion of Highway 409 contained within the municipal boundaries of the City. Proposed New Requirement: The Proposed Sign would be erected or displayed or caused to be erected or displayed in whole or in part within 130 metres of the northern limit of Highway 409.

3) § 694-25.C (2)(c) - An Employment Sign District may contain an electronic ground sign provided the sign shall not be erected within 30.0 metres of the intersection of a major street with any other street. Proposed New Requirement: The Proposed Sign would be erected or displayed or caused to be erected or displayed in whole or in part within 11.2 metres from the intersection of Belfield Road and Brockport Drive.

4) § 694-25.C(2)(d) - An Employment Sign District may contain an electronic ground sign provided the sign shall not be erected within any required setback of a building from a street as regulated by the City's applicable Zoning By-law; (which for the Subject Premises would be 4.5 metres). Proposed New Requirement: The Proposed Sign would be erected with a 3.9 metres setback with respect to the front yard of the Subject Premises; and with 3.15 metres setback respecting the side yard of the Subject Premises.

Following a review of the Applicant's submissions and the results of additional research and investigation by Sign By-law Unit staff, the CBO has determined that insufficient information has been provided to establish that the Proposed Sign meets all nine of the criteria established in §694- 30A of the Sign By-law.

Specifically, the information provided has not established that the Proposed Sign is compatible with the development of the premises and surrounding area; supports the Official Plan objectives for the premises and surrounding area; does not alter the character of the premises and surrounding area; does not adversely affect adjacent premises; does not adversely affect public safety, including traffic and pedestrian safety; and, is not contrary to the public interest. 

Therefore, the CBO does not support the Sign Variance Committee granting the four requested variances for the Proposed Sign