February 10, 1998

To:Chairman and Members

North York Community Council

From:Mr. E.Y. Uzumeri P.Eng.

Chief Building Official/Building Commissioner

Subject:Request for permission to erect an off premise roof sign at 3889 Keele Street.

Purpose:

Evaluate and make recommendations concerning a request by Just Cole of Gould Outdoor Advertising, for a variance from the sign by-law to permit an illuminated off premise roof sign oriented to face north & south bound traffic on Keele Street.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)The request by Just Cole of Gould Outdoor Advertising, be approved as a minor variance from the sign by-law.

Council Reference/Background/History:

In a letter dated February 4, 1998, Just Cole, of Gould Outdoor Advertising, is requesting permission to erect an illuminated off premise ABillboard@ roof sign oriented to face north & south bound traffic on Keele Street. The sign will be approximately 510 feet of an existing roof sign located on the same side of the street.

Section 5.3.1.1. of North York Sign By-law 30788 permits off premise roof signs having a maximum sign area of 250.8 square feet to be erected on the roof of an industrial building provided that no such roof sign will be closer than 750 feet from another roof sign on the same side of the street.

Although the proposed sign is well within the area limitations set fourth in the by-law it is closer than 750 feet from an existing roof sign on the same side of the street and therefore does not comply with the requirements of the sign by-law.

The applicant contends that although the site and the surrounding area is zoned industrial the actual use more closely resembles that of a commercial zone and as such relief from the by-law is appropriate. Since the sign by-law permits roof signs in commercial zones to be within 500 feet of each other, when erected on the same side of the street, the sign would comply.

A visit to the site by our staff confirmed that the land use in the community does more closely resemble that of a commercial zone rather than an industrial zone and that the proposed sign would not be out of place. In our view there would be no negative impact on the surrounding community resulting from it and the intent of the sign by-law would not be jeopardized if it were erected at the proposed location.

Conclusions:

In view of the above, we recommend that this request be approved as a minor variance from the sign by-law.

E.Y. UZUMERI, P.ENG.

BUILDING COMMISSIONER

jbb/c:\wpwin60\wpdocs\leg\98\keele.wpd