		DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE


	TO:	Mayor and Members of Council

	FROM:	Jim Baird, Commisioner of Development Services John Wright, Director of Building Standards

	PREPARED BY:	Anna Henriques, Zoning Plans Examiner

	DATE OF MEETING:	2004-Jun-15

	SUBJECT:	Wall Sign Variances Le Biftheque Steakhouse 7501 Woodbine Ave. Applications # 04-010751, 04 010753

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT the wall sign variance applications by Le Biftheque Steakhouse at 7501 Woodbine Ave, applications # 04-010751, 04 010753, BE DENIED.

BACKGROUND:

The subject property is zoned B.C (Business Corridor) under By-law 108-81, as amended, and is located on the northeast corner of Woodbine Avenue and Esna Park Drive.(Figure 1)

All 3 wall signs on the subject property were erected without sign permits.

In December of 2003, a Town of Markham By-law officer, Derrick Anderson, visited the subject property and advised Le Biftheque that sign permits were required for the existing wall signs. Derrick also advised that the cows (approximately 7) at the front of the property may also be considered signs and to contact the Building Department for more information.(Figure 2) The cows do constitute ‘signs’ as defined in the bylaw. The owner’s agent has been advised accordingly but to date, no applications have been filed.

Subsequent to Derrick’s visit in December of 2003, the sign located on the west elevation was removed and a larger sign was erected in its place. A photograph of the current sign was taken by Derrick Anderson in January of 2004. (Figure 3)

In March of 2004, sign permit applications still had not been applied for and again, Le Biftheque was advised by Derrick to apply for permits or charges would be laid.

On March 25^th, 2004, sign permits were applied for by the owner’s agent, William Roberts. Staff review of the sign permit applications revealed that 2 of the 3 existing signs did not comply with the sign by-law.

On April 20, 2004, the owner applied for a sign variance for the 2 non-compliant signs as it was the opinion of the owner that the costs to be incurred in bringing the signs into compliance would be too great. The owner was advised that staff would recommend that the proposed sign variances be denied based on Section 19.5 of the sign by-law.

The chart below illustrates the variances requested.

By-law Provision Permitted under By-law Existing Sign(s)

Maximum sign area per wall

18.75m²

21.5m² (West elevation)

Location of wall signs

No part of a sign shall extend beyond the extremity of the wall to which it is mounted.

Sign extends beyond the extremity of the wall to which it is mounted. (West and South elevation) (Figure 3 & 4)

OPTIONS/DISCUSSION:

Under the current sign By-law passed in May of 2002, no variances have been approved to permit an increase in sign area.

Section 19.5 of the sign by-law states that in considering an application for a variance the Development Services Committee and Council shall have regard for:

(a) Special circumstances or conditions applying to the land, building or use referred to in the application:

It is the opinion of staff that there are no special conditions or circumstances present on this site. The building is located on a major arterial road and is very visible with no visual impairments to it.

(b) Whether strict application of the provisions of this By-law in the context of the special circumstances applying to the land, building or use, would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary and unusual hardship for the applicant, inconsistent with the general intent and purpose of this By-law:

Lowering the signs and reducing the size of the existing sign on the west elevation to the maximum permitted sign area of 18.75m² would not create any unusual hardship for Le Biftheque. A 18.75m² sign completely on the building wall would be highly visible from the street line as the building is setback 40m from Woodbine Avenue with no visual impairments to it.

(c) Whether such special circumstances or conditions are pre-existing and not created by the owner or applicant:

There are no special circumstances. The section is not applicable.

(d) Whether the sign that is the subject of the variance will alter the essential character of the area:

If approved, this would alter the essential character of the area. It would set a precedent for other existing non-compliant signs and encourage sign variances. The cattle may also set a precedent for similar types of signage in the Town of Markham.

Other tenants of the building have brought their non-compliant signs into conformity.

The other tenants at the subject property had also erected non-compliant signs without first obtaining sign permits. The tenants were notified by our by-law enforcement officer and they have since revised their signs to comply with the sign by-law and have obtained sign permits.

Past sign variance applications for signs erected without permits denied.

Staff have dealt with similar sign variance applications where non- compliant signs have been erected without permits. None of these applications have been approved and the owners have incurred the cost of taking down a non-compliant sign and replacing it with a compliant one.

Therefore, the Building Department recommends that the sign variances be denied.

INTER DEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS:

The By-law Enforcement and Licensing Department is responsible for the inspection and enforcement of the Sign By-law.

ATTACHMENTS:

Figure 1 – Site location

Figure 2 – Photograph of cows at front of property, along Woodbine Ave.

Figure 3 – Photograph of west elevation sign

Figure 4 – Photograph of south elevation sign