Item - 2024.SB12.3

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.

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 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.