Item - 2016.SB10.3

The Sign Variance Committee:

1.      Granted the six variances requested to §§ 694-24A(1), 694-25C(2)(a), 694-25C(2)(b), 694-25C(2)(f), 694-25C(2)(g) and 694-25C(2)(h) required to allow the issuance of a permit for the erection and display of one third party electronic ground sign at the property known as 165 The Queensway (Ontario Food Terminal) described in Attachment 1 to the report dated June 29, 2016, from the Manager, Sign By-law Unit.

This report reviews and makes recommendations respecting an application made by the Toronto Wholesale Produce Association (the "Applicant") for one third party electronic ground sign. The proposed sign is intended to replace an existing third party ground sign with two sign faces, each displaying static copy. The existing ground sign is located at the south eastern portion of the premises municipally known as 165 The Queensway, commonly known as the Ontario Food Terminal, along the north side of the F.G. Gardiner Expressway.

The Applicant seeks to erect and display one third party electronic ground sign, containing two sign faces, each displaying electronic static copy, 14.63 metres in horizontal width by 4.27 metres in vertical length, oriented in a south-easterly and south-westerly direction and intended to attract the attention of both eastbound and westbound vehicular traffic along the F.G. Gardiner Expressway. The height of the sign is proposed to be 19.70 metres.

Six variances from the regulations contained in the Sign By-law are required to allow the issuance of a permit for the erection and display of this proposed sign.

Consistent with a staff report and recommendations respecting similar applications for electronic signs along the Gardiner Expressway in South Etobicoke, staff submits that all six variances required for the proposed sign should be refused on the basis that not all nine of the established criteria have been met. Staff are of the opinion that the Applicant has failed to meet four of the nine criteria required to be established, namely on the basis that the sign: is not compatible with the development of the premises and surrounding area; may adversely affect adjacent premises; will alter the character of the premise or the surrounding area; and, is contrary to the public interest.