Item - 2025.SB18.2

The Sign Variance Committee:

1. Refused to grant the requested variance to section 694-15.A, subject to three conditions, as required to allow for the issuance of a permit respecting the erection and display of the Original Proposed Sign, as further described in Attachment 1 to the report (August 28, 2025) from the Project Director, Business Transformation and Citywide Priorities, Toronto Building.

2. Refused to grant the requested variance to section 694-15.A, subject to three conditions, as required to allow for the issuance of a permit respecting the erection and display of the Alternative Proposed Sign, as further described in Attachment 2 to the report (August 28, 2025) from the Project Director, Business Transformation and 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.

At its June 13, 2025 meeting, the Sign Variance Committee (the "SVC") considered an application submitted by JOLT Charge Inc (the "Applicant") seeking one variance from the regulations of the Sign By-law, subject to three conditions, required to allow the issuance of a permit for the erection and display of one third party electronic ground sign (the "Original Proposed Sign") at the property municipally known as 3493 Kingston Road (the "Subject Premises").

For the purposes of allowing further submissions from the Applicant and preparing a supplementary report responding to, and transmitting to, the SVC these further submissions, the SVC referred the matter back to the Chief Building Official and Executive Director, Toronto Building (the "CBO"). Following the Committee's decision, the Applicant provided additional submissions which resulted in a similar but different second proposal (the "Alternative Proposed Sign"). This second proposal required a comprehensive assessment. This Supplementary Report, along with its associated attachments, supplements the original report submitted by the CBO which was considered at the June's hearing; and the recommendations in this report supersede in full the recommendations within that previous report.

Based on the documentation provided, the Applicant has now submitted two distinct proposals for the placement of a third party electronic ground sign (the "Proposed Sign") on the Subject Premises. While both proposals contain signs similar in design and specifications, they differ in location. The Alternative Proposed Sign is to be situated approximately 45.0 metres west of the location identified for the Original Proposed Sign. For each proposal, the Applicant is seeking one variance, subject to three conditions. These conditions are comparable in nature but have been adjusted to reflect the respective locations.

The Alternative Proposed Sign, like the Original Proposed Sign, would contain two rectangular sign faces displaying electronic static copy in a back-to-back configuration, oriented northeast and southwest, perpendicular to Kingston Road. Each sign face would measure 0.93 metres by 1.65 metres, resulting in a sign face area of 1.55 square metres, and a maximum height of 2.65 meters from grade.

The portion of the Subject Premises where the both the Original Proposed Sign and the Alternative Proposed Sign (collectively the "Proposed Signs") are sought be placed is designated Commercial Residential ("CR") Sign District, which allows third party signs, however, does not expressly permit signs of the electronic ground sign type. A variance is required to permit the erection and display of a sign type that is not permitted in the CR Sign District.

The Applicant's submissions indicate for each of the Proposed Signs, that they would be affixed to a structure that also features an electric vehicle charging station (the "EV charging station"). As Chapter 694 exclusively regulates signs, this report focuses solely on the components associated to the Proposed Signs. All aspects related to the EV charging station, including relevant laws and regulations, are excluded from the scope of this report.

Following a review of the Applicant's submissions and additional research by staff, the CBO remains in the position that there is not a sufficient basis to conclude that the eight mandatory criteria in §694-30A of the Sign By-law have been established with respect to the one variance, subject to three conditions, sought for either the Original Proposed Sign or the Alternative Proposed Sign.