Contempt of City Council: 199 Richmond Street West
The Municipal Licensing and Standards Division in conjunction with the Planning and Buildings Divisions will monitor all sign variances and applications for sign permits and take the necessary actions to ensure that the provisions in the By-law are followed and the decisions of City Council are respected.
-Municipal Licensing and Standards to Toronto and East York Community Council
In today’s edition of Contempt, we look at the large vinyl wall sign at 199 Richmond Street West:
In December 1994, Cieslok Outdoor obtained this permit to paint a 250 square metre third party mural on the easterly wall of 199 Richmond:
Not satisfied with a 250 square metre painted sign, Cieslok illegally installed a 67 square metre vinyl fascia sign. In June 1998, Cieslok applied for a variance to maintain the illegal sign. The planning department recommended against the 67 square metre sign even though Cieslok had a permit to paint a 250 square metre sign on the same wall. Planning said: The second variance occurs because the sign is located within 60 metres of two third party ground signs. The separation distance was introduced into the Municipal Code in order to prevent sign clutter. In this instance, the existing ground signs located at 181 Richmond Street and at 168 Simcoe Street, as well as the subject fascia sign are all visible to motorists travelling westbound on Richmond Street and, in my opinion, that many signs situated this close to one another is excessive and represents oversignage.
Again, like in yesterday’s example, we see how Planning considers the aesthetics of a vinyl fascia sign to be substantially different from the aesthetics of a mural. Even though the fascia sign was replacing a painted mural that was permitted to be 3.7X larger than the fascia sign, Planning concluded that the much smaller fascia sign would contribute to an excess of signage. This is because Planning knew very well that operating a 250 square metre painted sign just does not have the same economic profit as operating a 67 square metre vinyl sign.
Here is the complete staff report:
According to these Minutes, city councillors rejected the variance on a motion from Councillor Chow, after Cieslok’s Danny Starnino made a deputation in support of maintaining the illegal fascia sign operating under a mural permit:
Nine years later, the illegal sign is still there except now it’s quite a bit larger than 67 square metres. On March 1, 2007 Municipal Licensing and Standards issued a Notice of Violation to 199 Richmond Street West, ordering the sign removed within 14 days. Three and a half months have passed and the sign is still there and the City Council decision is still being disrespected by Municipal Licensing and Standards.
Surprise, surprise, the advertising company has applied for another variance to legalize the illegal fascia sign. And when city councillors hand down their decision on this latest variance application, MLS will take the necessary actions to ignore that decision, too. The necessary actions being to vigorously enforce the signs by-law against people who are willing to obey the signs by-law while submitting laughably clueless staff reports to the very same city councillors whose decisions you’re disrespecting simply because of your own learned uselessness. Nobody is born this useless. The Toronto Public Service does that to you.
