Item - 2026.SB25.2

The Chief Building Official and Executive Director, Toronto Building recommends that:

1. The Sign Variance Committee refuse to grant the two requested variances to subsection 694-21 I(5)(a), each subject to one condition, as required to allow for the issuance of a sign permit respecting the erection and display of Proposed Sign #1 and Proposed Sign #2 contained in the Applicant-Proposed Sign Variance, as further described in Attachment 1 to this report.

2. The Sign Variance Committee grant the two requested variances to 694-21 I(5)(a), each subject to one condition, as required to allow for the issuance of a sign permit respecting the erection and display of Proposed Sign #1 and Proposed Sign #2 contained in the CBO-Designed Variance, as further described in Attachment 2 to this report.

This report addresses an appeal of the decision of the Chief Building Official and Executive Director, Toronto Building (the “CBO”) concerning a sign variance application for two first party wall signs (the “Applicant-Proposed Sign Variance”) filed by Priority Permits (the “Applicant”). The Applicant-Proposed Sign Variance pertains to variances sought respecting each of the wall signs (Proposed Sign #1 and Proposed Sign #2 collective referred as the “Proposed Signs”), each subject to one condition. The Applicant indicated the Proposed Signs are intended to offer identification and information for a self storage facility on property municipally known as 70 Caledonia Park Road (the “Subject Premises”).

In accordance with the requirements of the Sign By-law, notice of the Applicant-Proposed Sign Variance application was provided to the public, and two parties participated in the written hearing and filed materials in relation thereto.

Upon reviewing the materials submitted, the CBO decided to refuse variances for the Proposed Signs contained in the Applicant-Proposed Sign Variance application. The CBO determined, based on the materials presented by the Applicant and others, that the Applicant-Proposed Sign Variance application would not meet all eight of the mandatory criteria which would allow for the required variances to be granted.

At the same time, the CBO determined that sufficient information existed to establish that a different proposal for variances would meet the mandatory criteria. As a result, the CBO approved different sign variances for similar signs at the same locations, each subject to two conditions (the “CBO-Designed Variance”). The CBO-Designed Variance and the CBO’s rationale in support there of are described in Appendix 2 to this report.

One of the parties to the hearing, Matthew Aldoosh (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 Applicant-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 Applicant-Proposed Sign Variance, or to make a decision to grant different variances, or impose conditions which the Applicant did not include in the Applicant-Proposed Sign Variance.

There are no current or known future year financial impacts arising from the recommendations contained in this report.