Request for a Variance from Sign By-law No. 64-87 of the former
Borough of East York submitted by Jasamax Holdings Inc. for the
installation of a single sign at the Governor's Bridge Estates on
Bayview Avenue at Nesbitt Drive
The East York Community Council recommends that:
(1)the following report (October28, 1998) from the Manager, Field Office, East York, be adopted, subject to
amending Recommendation No. 3 by adding the following Recommendation No. 3(iv):
"3(iv) that the owner of the property in question remove the word "Rosedale" from the sign and substitute in lieu
thereof a more geographically correct adjective which describes this neighbourhood;" and
(2)the following communication (November 9, 1998) from Mr. Donald Lake, EastYork, be received:
Purpose:
The developer of the above property proposes to erect a sign incidental to construction and land development for marketing
the new homes proposed to be constructed at this site. A variance from the Sign By-law requirements is required, because
the sign is not permitted as proposed.
Financial Implications:
There are no financial implications.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)Council approve the variance from the Sign By-law requirements to permit the installation of a single sign incidental to
construction and land development having an aggregate area of 37.16 square metres (400 square feet) and an overall height
of 6.1 metres (20 feet) for the Governor's Bridge Estates on Bayview Avenue at Nesbitt Drive;
(2)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto; and
(3)the sign approval to be subject to the following conditions:
i)one sign only shall be permitted on the land under construction or development;
ii)the sign shall be removed at the expense of the owner, forthwith upon completion of such construction or land
development, or, if not removed, within ten days after the mailing of notice by the inspector, to such owner, requiring
removal.
iii)the applicant for the permit sign shall deposit with the treasurer of the City of Toronto the sum of five hundred dollars
($ 500.00) to guarantee the removal of the sign. This deposit will be returned to the applicant if the sign is removed after
the said notice from the inspector. The Chief Building Official shall have the right to remove the sign and the cost of any
such removal shall be deducted from the deposit and any balance remaining shall be paid to the applicant. All the above
require that the sign is erected only upon the privately owned property upon which construction or land development is
taking place.
Background:
The Municipal Act authorizes Council to pass by-laws for prohibiting or regulating signs and advertising devices. The Act
also authorizes Council to grant minor variances from the by-law where such variances, in the opinion of Council, would
maintain the general intent of the by-law.
Comments:
The Sign By-law allows signs incidental to construction and land development subject to certain restrictions and
regulations relating to sign area, height, number of signs, duration and removal of signs. In cases where the requirements of
the by-law are not complied with, a request for variance may be submitted to the Council for its consideration. This report
deals with such a request for variance.
The subject property is located along the west side of Bayview Avenue south of Nesbitt Drive. The 5.235 hectare site is
currently vacant, but it is proposed to be developed with sixty four (64) single family detached houses.
The request for variance arises because Article 5.1(b) of Sign By-law No. 64-87 permits the installation of one sign,
incidental to construction and land development, not exceeding 23 square metres in area, or a group of signs not exceeding
23 square metres of aggregate sign area, while the applicant proposes to install one sign with an area of 37.16 square
metres (400 square feet).
The purpose of the sign is to advertise the development wishes to take advantage of the large open area around the site and
construct a sign larger than what is permitted by the by-law.
Conclusion:
Staff is of the opinion that this type of sign is to be expected with land development and that the installation of the sign on
this site will not adversely impact the neighbourhood due to the large open space around the sign and its great distance
from other residential properties.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Iraklis (Eric) Tsotsos
778-2239
The East York Community Council also submits the following communication (November9,1998) from Mr. Donald
Lake, East York:
"Submission:
The variance should not be granted.
Reasons:
1) The current by-law is more then adequate for any signage the developer wishes to use. The current by law is for signs up
to 23 square meters which is in excess of 250 sq. ft.
2) As a result of premature and irregular clearing of foliage, the current sign is now a prominent part of the view from my
backyard. In fact, given the size of the sign it adversely affects me. I find the sign to be poorly designed and considerably
larger then needed.
3) The sign contains statements that are not accurate: the development is not in Rosedale. My tax dollars could one day be
spent on a law suit as the municipality could become party to a law suit on in accurate advertising.
4) Municipal interests should be protected by making it very clear to this developer that he is expected to follow the law.
Changing laws at this stage of the development will be a poor precedent for municipality which has placed a considerable
number of conditions on this project. It must made clear that every time the developer wants more, he will not receive
more unless there is an overwhelming case to be made for changing the law.
5) Staff has given no credible reason why the variance should be granted, other then the developer demands the variance.
6) I would personally welcome a series of smaller well designed and accurate signs that are less visible from my home.
7) The development has a condition requiring a sustainable sewage system. Why would such a large sign be needed at this
moment?
8) The notice of this request for variance does not give the community adequate time to respond to the issue. Further, to the
best of my knowledge, only two members of the community have been informed by the municipality of this request for a
variance. My submission is this is a denial of due process."
--------
Mr. John Alati, Solicitor, Davies Howe Partners, on behalf of Jasamax Holdings, Inc. Toronto, appeared before the East
York Community Council in connection with the foregoing.
Insert Table/Map No. 1
Sign and Location Map
Insert Table/Map No. 2
Sign and Location Map