Item - 2025.SB15.4

The Sign Variance Committee:

1. Refused the requested variance to 694-21 A(4)(g)[2], required for the implementation of the Proposed Sign Variance consisting of one first party ground sign located on the premises municipally known as 40 Humewood Drive, as described further in Attachment 1 of this report.

2. Approved the variance to 694-21A(4)(g)[2], subject to subject to five conditions, required for the implementation of the CBO-Designed Variance consisting of one first party ground sign located on the premises municipally known as 40 Humewood Drive, as described further in Attachment 2 of this report.

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 of the decision of the Chief Building Official and Executive Director, Toronto Building (“CBO”) concerning an application for a Sign Variance (the “Proposed Sign Variance”). The Proposed Sign Variance pertains to one variance sought for one first party ground sign (the “Proposed Sign”). Applicant indicated the sign contained in the Proposed Sign Variance is intended to offer identification and information for Abiona Centre, a registered charity located on property municipally known as 40 Humewood Drive (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. Various parties participated in the hearing and filed materials in relation thereto.

Upon receipt of the materials provided, the CBO made the decision to refuse the application for the Proposed Sign Variance; and at the same time, also made the decision to approve a different sign variance, for a similar sign in the same location and subject to five conditions (the “CBO-Designed Variance”). Specifically, the CBO-Designed Variance imposed conditions on the Proposed Sign that, if illuminated, it shall not be illuminated between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., and that illumination shall not exceed 150 nits at any time, that the readograph copy proposed may only be changed once per day, that evergreen landscaping, at least 1.0 meter in height, shall be installed and maintained in a 1.0 meter radius around the base of the Proposed Sign, and that the Proposed Sign shall be erected substantially in accordance with the Applicant's submission materials.

The CBO determined, based on the materials presented by the Applicant and others, that the Proposed Sign Variance would not meet all eight criteria for a variance to be granted. However, the CBO concluded that a sign variance which contained the specified conditions would meet the eight 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 Sign Variance and granting the variance subject to five conditions required for the CBO-Designed Variance, one of the parties to the hearing, Denise Tarka (the “Appellant”), filed an appeal of the CBO’s decision. As a result, 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 Sign Variance meets all eight criteria, on the basis of the information presented to the SVC.

The SVC may decide to refuse, or grant the variances requested by the Applicant for the Proposed Sign Variance, or to make a decision to grant different variances, or impose conditions which the Applicant did not include in the Proposed Sign Variance. It is the CBO’s opinion that it has not been established that the Proposed Sign Variance would meet all eight established criteria as contained at §694-30A of the Sign By-law, however that the CBO-Designed Variance, further detailed in Attachment 2, would meet all of the required criteria.