Item - 2024.SB12.2

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.

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 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.