Item - 2024.SB6.8

The Sign Variance Committee:

1. Adjourned, at the request of appellant, the matter for an Appeal of the Chief Building Official's Decision for a Signage Master Plan Application for 3 wall signs on a portion of the premises at 2075 Bayview Avenue, to its March 1, 2024 meeting.

This report addresses an appeal of the decision of the Chief Building Official and Executive Director, Toronto Building (“CBO”) concerning an application for a Signage Master Plan regulating a portion of the premises municipally known as 2075 Bayview Avenue (“2075-Bayview”) consisting of the majority of the northern elevation of a the building known as “S-Wing” (the "Specific Location") concerning three variances sought for three first party illuminated wall signs displaying static copy (the “Proposed Signage Master Plan”) . Two of the wall signs in the Proposed Signage Master Plan (“Proposed Sign 1” and “Proposed Sign 2”) would have been located on the fifth storey, and the other (“Proposed Sign 3”) would have been located on the sixth storey of the northerly elevation of the S-Wing building at 2075-Bayview. Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre as represented by Permit World (the "Applicant") applied for the Proposed Signage Master Plan, as described in Attachment 1. The Applicant indicated the three signs contained in the Proposed Signage Master Plan were intended offer identification and wayfinding to guests and patients on the hospital campus.

Notice of the application for the Proposed Signage Master Plan was provided to the public, and the CBO conducted a written hearing in accordance with the requirements of the Sign By-law. Various parties participated in the hearing and filed materials in relation thereto.

Upon receipt of the materials provided, the CBO made the decision to deny the application for the Proposed Signage Master Plan; at this same time, the CBO also made the decision to approve a substantively different Signage Master Plan, which while addressing the same location, and similar signs, contained specific conditions regarding illumination (the “CBO-Designed Signage Master Plan”).  Specially the CBO-Designed Signage Master Plan, imposed conditions on the signs, that if illuminated, the sign shall not be illuminated between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., and that illumination shall not exceed 150 nits during the period between sunset and sunrise for the signs.

The CBO determined that the Proposed Signage Master Plan, would not meet all nine criteria, however, the CBO, determined based on the materials presented by the Applicant and others, that a Signage Master Plan which contained conditions on the illumination of the signs in the Specific Location, would be able to meet the nine criteria as these conditions would be sufficient to mitigate the potential for adverse impacts on surrounding properties, and other criteria. 

After the issuance of the CBO’s decision denying the variances requested for the Proposed Signage Master Plan, and granting the variances, subject to conditions, required for the CBO-Designed Signage Master Plan, one of the parties to the hearing, Eda Di Pierdomenico (the “Appellant”) filed an appeal of the CBO’s decision.

As a result of the Appellant filing an appeal of the CBO’s decision, 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 Signage Master Plan meets all nine criteria, on the basis of the information presented to the Sign Variance Committee.  The SVC may make a decision to refuse, or grant the variances requested by the Applicant for the Proposed Signage Master Plan, or to make a decision to grant different variances, or impose conditions which the Applicant did not include in the Proposed Signage Master Plan.

It is the CBO’s opinion that it has not been established that the Proposed Signage Master Plan would meet all nine established criteria as contained at §694-30A of the Sign By-law, but that the CBO-Designed Signage Master Plan as set out in Attachment 2 would meet all of the required criteria.