Yin (Re), 2023 ONTLAB 175

Toronto Local Appeal Body

40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253

Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9

Date:

2023-12-28

23 175891 S45 15 TLAB

Yin (Re), 2023 ONTLAB 175

DECISION AND ORDER

Issuance Date:

December 28, 2023

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER Section 45(12), subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (the "Act")

Appellant(s):

Y. YIN

Applicant(s):

G. MYERS

Property Address:

59 TEDDINGTON PARK AVE

COA File No.:

23 143254 NNY 15 MV (A0256/23NY)

TLAB Case File No.:

23 175891 S45 15 TLAB

Hearing Date(s):

December 14, 2023

Decision Delivered By:

TLAB Panel Member T. Kezwer

REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:

People Type

First Initial. Last Name

Representative

Applicant

G. MYERS

Appellant

Y. YIN

J. HOFFMAN

Party (TLAB)

M. J TORY

W. ROBERTS

Participant

S. STEVENS

Participant

W. S. FIELDING

Participant

P. COROLIS

Participant

B. BOYD

Participant

W. M. PRINGLE

Participant

A. DURNFORD

Participant

S. FIELDING

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1This was a settlement hearing before the Toronto Local Appeal Body (the "Tribunal").

2The Appellant, Y. Yin, appeals a denial by the North York panel of the Committee of Adjustment for variances for a proposed new 3-storey house to be built on the property located at 59 Teddington Park Avenue (the "Subject Property").

3The appeal is being allowed in part pursuant to the site plan and other drawings dated November 14, 2023, which were contained in a Settlement Agreement entered into by the parties. There were changes made to the proposal after the Committee of Adjustment hearing, and the appeal is being allowed in part to accommodate these changes.

4The Subject Property is located on the south side of Teddington Park Avenue, which is an east-west road. The Subject Property is located north of Lawrence Avenue East, east of Yonge Street, and with Rosedale Golf Club to the north and east, within the Lawrence Park North area. The Subject Property is designated 'Neighbourhoods' in the Official Plan and is zoned RD (f15.0; d0.35)(x1427) under the City of Toronto Zoning By-law 569-2013 (the "Zoning By-law").

5Prior to the hearing I visited the Subject Property and familiarized myself with the neighbourhood in which it is situated.

6As part of the settlement reached by the parties, the requested Building Length, Building Depth, and FSI variances have been reduced.

7The Applicant/Appellant Document Disclosure dated November 28, 2023, and the Expert Witness Statement of Ryan Guetter dated November 24, 2023, are part of the hearing record as Exhibits 1 and 2 respectively.

8I will now outline the legal framework guiding this matter.

THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

9A decision of the Tribunal must be consistent with the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement (the "PPS") and conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (the "Growth Plan") for the subject area.

10In considering the applications for variances from the Zoning By-laws, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the applications meet all of the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Act. The tests are whether the variances:

• maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan;

• maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-laws;

• are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; and

• are minor.

11The requested variances are as follows:

1. Chapter 10.20.40.20(1), By-law 569-2013

The permitted maximum building length is 17 metres.

The proposed building length is 22.93 metres.

Note: Building length includes rear covered terrace.

2. Chapter 10.20.40.30.(1), By-law 569-2013

The permitted maximum building depth is 19 metres.

The proposed building depth is 22.93 metres.

Note: Building depth includes rear covered terrace.

3. Chapter 10.20.40.40.(1)(A), Bylaw 569-2013

The permitted maximum floor space index is 0.35 times the area of the lot.

The proposed floor space index is 0.598 times the area of the lot.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

12Ryan Guetter was qualified as an expert witness in the area of land use planning. Mr. Guetter has over 19 years of experience as a land use planner and is a Registered Professional Planner. Mr. Guetter holds the position of Executive Vice President at Weston Consulting. Mr. Guetter was the only witness to give evidence at this settlement hearing.

13Mr. Guetter's opinion is that each requested variance individually and cumulatively satisfies the four tests outlined in section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

14I will now proceed to review the Tribunal's findings with regards to the requested variances.

Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 and Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe

15Mr. Guetter opined that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the Growth Plan. Mr. Guetter cited the proposal as being consistent with the following PPS policies: .1.1, 1.1.3.1, 1.1.3.2, 1.1.3.3, 1.1.3.4, 1.4.1, and 1.4.3. In addition, Mr. Guetter cited the proposal as conforming to the following Growth Plan policies: 2.2.1.2, 2.2.1.4, 2.2.2.1, 2.2.4 and 2.2.6.

16I do not believe it is necessary to review the cited policies in detail in this decision as these documents are general in nature and provide the framework within which the Official Plan and Zoning By-Law operate. I accept that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and Conforms to the Growth Plan.

Policy 4.1.5 of the Official Plan

17The Subject Property is designated Neighbourhoods in the City Official Plan. Policy 4.1.5 outlines Development Criteria for Neighbourhoods.

18Pursuant to Policy 4.1.5 of the Official Plan, Mr. Guetter identified a Study Area generally bounded by:

(A) Doncliffe Drive to the north, excluding the properties fronting on the north side of Doncliffe Drive;

(B) Rosedale Golf Club and Ronan Avenue to the east, excluding the properties fronting on the east side of Ronan Avenue;

(C) Glenforest Road to the south, including properties fronting onto the south side of Glenforest Road; and

(D) Yonge Street to the west, excluding the properties fronting on the east side of Yonge Street.

Study Area as shown in Applicant/Appellant's Document Disclosure received by the Tribunal on November 28, 2023, at Tab 20.

19I accept the Study Area identified by Mr. Guetter. To draw the Neighbourhood boundary, the Official Plan lists nine criteria: "zoning; prevailing dwelling type and scale; lot size and configuration; street pattern; pedestrian connectivity; and natural and human-made dividing features". I accept the analysis of the following criteria which was provided by Mr. Guetter to determine the Study Area:

(A) Zoning: The geographic neighbourhood consists of Residential Detached "RD" zones, which permit single detached dwellings. There are five RD zones throughout the geographic neighbourhood with differing minimum lot frontage requirements, maximum Floor Space Index requirements, and zoning exceptions.

(B) Prevailing Dwelling Type and Scale: All dwellings within the geographic neighbourhood are single detached dwellings, ranging in height between 1 and 3 storeys. The scale differs between older and newer dwellings, as is common throughout the City, where newer replacement dwellings are larger. The Study Area includes a mix of newer and older homes in varying configurations and styles of architecture, including modern homes with flat roofs and traditional homes with pitched, flat, or sloped roof lines.

(C) Lot Size & Configuration: Lot size varies throughout the geographic neighbourhood. The majority of lots in this neighbourhood are configured in a north-south direction with the majority of the dwellings fronting the east-west cross streets. The geographic neighbourhood is unique due to the presence of the Rosedale Golf Club within the eastern portion of the study area, which influences the orientation of some east-west cross streets within the Study Area such as the eastern segment of Teddington Park Avenue. It is noted that the lots fronting onto these streets are of a slightly different orientation than the lots fronting the grid pattern of standard east-west streets but due to proximity to the Subject Property they contribute to the character of the geographic neighbourhood.

(D) Street Pattern: The street pattern is generally linear resulting in the majority of lots being predominantly rectangular in shape. Streets to the north and east have been excluded from the Study Area as they start to differ from the standard grid-like pattern of streets within the geographic neighbourhood. Many of the streets, particularly the east-west streets, within the defined geographic neighbourhood do not extend past the defined neighbourhood boundaries. This results in a largely contained street and block network that distinguishes this neighbourhood from the surrounding areas. The defined geographic neighbourhood contains only local residential streets.

(E) Pedestrian Connectivity: The entire Study Area is unified as a single neighbourhood through pedestrian connectivity. Most of the streets within the geographic neighbourhood provide pedestrian walkways on either both sides or one side of the street.

20Mr. Guetter defined the immediate context to be the lands fronting both sides of Teddington Park Avenue between Bocastle Avenue to the west and Mt. Pleasant Road to the east. In addition, Mr. Guetter opined and I accept that there is no significant difference between the character of buildings in the immediate context and the broader context.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

21I will now go through the four statutory tests and the findings of the Tribunal on each test. The length and depth variances will be analyzed together.

1. Chapter 10.20.40.20(1), By-law 569-2013

The permitted maximum building length is 17 metres.

The proposed building length is 22.93 metres.

Note: Building length includes rear covered terrace.

2. Chapter 10.20.40.30.(1), By-law 569-2013

The permitted maximum building depth is 19 metres.

The proposed building depth is 22.93 metres.

Note: Building depth includes rear covered terrace.

Do the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan?

22Mr. Guetter cited various sections of the Official Plan, including 3.1.2.3, providing the opinion that the proposal will fit into both the existing and planned context. Mr. Guetter opined that there will be no impact on neighboring streets, parks, or open spaces, and that the proposed massing is similar to many existing dwellings on Teddington Park Avenue and on adjacent streets in the geographic neighbourhood.

23Mr. Guetter also opined that the proposal will maintain the intent of section 3.2.1 as it provides a new three-storey replacement dwelling that contributes to the current and future needs of residents in the City of Toronto and assists in replenishing and reinvesting in the existing housing stock.

24An additional policy that was cited is 3.4.1(d) which deals with preserving and enhancing the urban forest. Mr. Guetter noted that the proposal requires permission to injure three privately-owned trees located at the front and rear of the Subject Property and to remove two privately-owned tree located at the front and rear of the Subject Property. However, the arborist report and tree protection plan dated April 4, 2023, notes that the trees requiring permission to injure are expected to survive with minimal injury. Mr. Guetter noted that the proposal has been carefully designed to avoid the tree protection zones of by-law protected trees, including an increased 2.1-metre east side-yard setback for the majority of the east side wall. The remaining trees, including the Pear Trees and Beech Tree along the northern property line, the Cedar Trees and Maple Trees along the eastern property line, the Ginko Tree, Honey Locust Tree and Maple Tree along the western property line, and the Cedar Tree along the southern eastern property line are proposed to remain to maintain tree cover and privacy. Mr. Guetter noted that Urban Forestry did not prepare a memo stating any objection to the proposal or to the tree removal required to facilitate the proposed development. Mr. Guetter's opinion that the proposal will maintain the general intent and purpose of section 3.4.1(d).

25Other cited sections of the Official Plan include: 2.3.1, and 4.1.8. I accept Mr. Guetter's opinion with regard to the various provisions of the Official Plan that have been cited. This applies to each of the requested variances, and I will not be reviewing the aforementioned provisions again this decision.

26For the building length and building dept variances, the key criteria in section 4.1.5 of the Official Plan is 4.1.5(c) Prevailing heights, massing, scale, density and dwelling type of nearby residential properties.

27Mr. Guetter opined that the proposed dwelling will be compatible and will fit in with the prevailing character of the geographic neighbourhood, which is residential single detached dwellings, generally one to three storeys in height.

28Mr. Guetter provided his further opinion that although the proposed dwelling requires a variance for building length and depth, the dwelling provides adequate provision of setbacks to neighbouring properties based on the built form of both historic and newly constructed dwellings within the surrounding neighbourhood. The proposed dwelling will not, in Mr. Guetter's opinion, alter the prevailing physical character of the neighbourhood. Additionally, there are many instances within the geographic neighbourhood where increased building lengths and depths have been approved, or have existed previous to the new by-law provisions governing length and depth.

29Mr. Guetter opined that prior minor variance decisions in the geographic neighbourhood, which are summarized in Applicant/Appellant's Document Disclosure, demonstrate that the Proposed Development will contribute to the trend of recently approved dwelling sizes and scales, including density, length and depth. A total of 121 relevant recent Committee of Adjustment, TLAB, and/or OLT approvals within the Study Area included an approval for increased FSI, length, and/or depth, demonstrating that larger scale buildings with increased density, building length, and building depth is a prevailing characteristic of redevelopment within this geographic neighbourhood. There are numerous examples of homes with length and depth variances approved that are greater or comparable to what is sought by the Proposed Development, including but not limited to:

(A) 21 Doncliffe Drive (FSI: 0.7328, Length: 25.32 m, Depth: 26.54 m);

(B) 46 Teddington Park Avenue (FSI: 0.5, Length: 23.98 m, Depth: 23.11 m);

(C) 7 Donino Avenue (Length: 25.18 m, Depth: 25.18 m); and

(F) 7 Doncliffe Drive (Length: 35.37 m).

30I accept Mr. Guetter's opinion regarding the building length and building depth variances being proposed, and I find that they respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the geographic neighbourhood.

31In conclusion, I find that the proposed building length and building depth variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.

Do the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-Law?

32Mr. Guetter opined that the general intent and purpose of the building length and depth performance standards is to ensure a consistent pattern of development within a neighbourhood and to assist in controlling the overall massing and built form impacts of buildings as they relate to adjacent dwellings.

33Mr. Guetter noted that the increased building length and depth of 22.93 metres relates only to a portion of the building that is one-storey in height which extends beyond the rest of the dwelling, as well as a small bump-out at the second storey. Mr. Guetter noted further that the one-storey portion does not extend the full width of the house at the full 22.93-metre length, but rather only comprises approximately half of the dwelling width at the full 22.93-metre length (the covered terrace) while the rest of the one-storey portion only extends to a length of 20.43 metres.

34Mr. Guetter provided his opinion that as a result of the extended length and depth being limited to a one-storey portion of the dwelling that does not extend the full width of the house, the impact of the building massing associated with the increased building length and depth is minimized and that the proposed dwelling achieves an appropriate massing and scale for the neighbourhood in keeping with the intent of the Zoning By-law. Additionally, the proposed dwelling is tiered and provides stepbacks at each storey, thereby limiting the impact of the increased length and depth.

35Stepbacks are achieved at the back of dwelling at the second storey and at the front and the back of the dwelling at the third storey, reducing the building length with each storey and thereby subsequently reducing the floor area associated with each storey. The ground floor area is 303.51 square metres, the second floor area is 302.51 square metres, and the third floor area is 108.11 square metres. Mr. Guetter opined that as a result of this stepping back and decrease in floor area as the building increases in height, the impact of the building massing associated with the increased length and depth is minimized and that the proposed dwelling achieves an appropriate massing and scale for the neighbouring properties in keeping with the intent of the Zoning By-law.

36Mr. Guetter further opined that the requested variances are in line with length and depth variances granted for other properties in the geographic neighbourhood. There are 23 decisions within the Study Area that granted a length and/or depth variance, including lengths and depths of 20 metres or greater, including but not limited to:

(A) 7 Doncliffe Drive (Length: 35.37 m);

(B) 21 Doncliffe Drive (Length: 25.32 m, Depth: 26.54 m);

(C) 7 Donino Avenue (Length: 25.18 m, Depth: 25.18 m);

(D) 141 Snowdon Avenue (Length: 20.3 m, Depth: 20.3 m);

(E) 46 Teddington Park Avenue (Length: 23.98 m, Depth: 23.11 m); and

(F) 50 Teddington Park Avenue (Length: 20.77 m, Depth: 20.77 m).

37Mr. Guetter's opinion is that given the presence of other dwellings in the geographic neighbourhood with comparable and greater building lengths and depths, the proposed variances will achieve an appropriate building massing and maintain a compatible relationship with the adjacent dwellings. Mr. Guetter is of the opinion that potential overlook and privacy impacts are minimized, and the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law is maintained.

38I agree with Mr. Guetter that the presence of other dwellings in the geographic neighbourhood with compatible and greater building lengths is important, as it demonstrates that the proposed variances will achieve an appropriate building massing and maintain a compatible relationship with the adjacent dwellings. I find that the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law is maintained.

Are the variances desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land?

39I find that the building length and depth variances are appropriate for the development of the Subject Property. I accept Mr. Guetter's opinion that the proposed dwelling will not create any inappropriate site conditions with respect to adjacent lots.

40I accept Mr. Geutter's opinion that the building length and building depth of the proposed dwelling will respect and reinforce the character of and fit harmoniously within the geographic neighbourhood. It is important to note that the proposed dwelling maintains appropriate yard setbacks in keeping with the pattern of side and rear yards within the geographic neighbourhood, will contribute to an attractive streetscape, maintains an appropriate massing and scale, and provides for a sufficient rear yard to accommodate typical rear-yard amenities and appropriate separation from adjacent dwellings. The building length and building depth variances respect and reinforce the established building pattern in the area, and do not result in an overdevelopment of the site.

Are the variances minor?

41I find that the proposed building length and building depth are compatible with the buildings in the geographic neighbourhood and do not create undue adverse impacts on the streetscape of adjacent properties. I agree with Mr. Guetter that the proposed building length and building depth variances are minor in nature, are in keeping with the character of the area, and will result in a dwelling that is compatible with existing and new development in the neighbourhood.

Conclusion

42In conclusion, the building length and building depth variances meet the statutory test to be considered minor variances pursuant to section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

3. Chapter 10.20.40.40.(1)(A), Bylaw 569-2013

The permitted maximum floor space index is 0.35 times the area of the lot.

The proposed floor space index is 0.598 times the area of the lot.

Does the variance maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan?

43Policy 4.1.5 requires that development in established Neighbourhoods respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the neighbourhood. The key criteria relevant to the consideration of the floor space index is: is 4.1.5(c) Prevailing heights, massing, scale, density and dwelling type of nearby residential properties.

44Mr. Guetter opined that the proposed dwelling will be compatible and will fit in with the prevailing character of the geographic neighbourhood, which is residential single detached dwellings and generally comprised of one to three storeys in height.

45Mr. Guetter provided the further opinion that although the proposed dwelling requires a variance for FSI, the proposed dwelling maintains appropriate yard setbacks from all property lines in line with other approvals regularly granted by the Committee of Adjustment, TLAB, and OLT, including FSI requirements that are greater than what is currently existing on site as well as what is proposed. The proposed dwelling also provides an appropriate building height of three storeys (11 metres) which complies with zoning requirements. Mr. Guetter opined, and I accept that the proposed dwelling will maintain a massing and scale that is appropriate for the neighbourhood and the increased density will not be perceptible from the street. Mr. Guetter provided his further opinion, there are many instances within the geographic neighbourhood where increased density has been approved or have pre-existed as legally non-complying.

46Mr. Guetter opined that prior minor variance decisions in the geographic neighbourhood, which are summarized in Applicant/Appellant's Document Disclosure, demonstrate that the proposal will contribute to the trend of recently approved dwelling sizes and scales, including density, in the geographic neighbourhood. A total of 121 relevant recent Committee of Adjustment, TLAB, and/or OLT approvals within the Study Area included an approval for increased FSI, length, and/or depth, demonstrating that larger scale buildings with increased density, building length, and building depth is a prevailing characteristic of redevelopment within this geographic neighbourhood. There are numerous examples of homes with FSI variances approved that are greater or comparable to what is sought by the proposal, including but not limited to:

(A) 21 Doncliffe Drive (FSI: 0.7328, Length: 25.32 m, Depth: 26.54 m);

(B) 46 Teddington Park Avenue (FSI: 0.5, Length: 23.98 m, Depth: 23.11 m);

(D) 80 Glen Echo Road (FSI: 0.83); and

(E) 36 Teddington Park (FSI: 0.628).

47I accept Mr. Guetter's opinion regarding the FSI variance being proposed, and I find that it respects and reinforces the existing physical character of the geographic neighbourhood.

48In conclusion, I find that the proposed FSI variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.

Does the variance maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-Law?

49Mr. Guetter opined that the intent of a maximum permitted FSI is in large part to regulate the amount of gross floor area (the "GFA") which can be built on a property with regard to massing and built form, along with other performance standards such as overall building height, building depth, building length, and setbacks.

50Mr. Guetter's opinion is that the proposed dwelling has been designed to minimize its massing and scale through the use of building stepbacks at each floor. This contributes to achieving the objective of the Zoning By-law of controlling building massing and built form while accommodating an increase in GFA to meet the needs of the future residents.

51Mr. Guetter also noted that no variance is required for either side yard setback. Mr. Guetter opined that the requested variance is similar and within the range of other FSI variances granted within the geographic neighbourhood representing both comparable and greater densities than what is currently proposed. There are 112 decisions within the Study Area that granted an increase in FSI, including FSI values of 0.60 and greater, including but not limited to:

(A) 80 Glen Echo Road (East FSI: 0.83, West FSI: 0.83);

(B) 64 Snowdon Avenue (FSI: 0.805);

(C) 210 Ronan Avenue (FSI: 0.784);

(D) 111 Glenforest Road (FSI: 0.77);

(E) 235 Glenforest Road (FSI: 0.77);

(F) 87 Glenforest Road (FSI: 0.762); and

(G) 236 Glenforest Road (FSI: 0.76).

52There are also a number of variances approved for increased FSI along Teddington Park Avenue that are comparable or greater than the current proposal, including but not limited to:

(A) 36 Teddington Park (FSI: 0.628);

(B) 177 Teddington Park (FSI: 0.5499);

(C) 46 Teddington Park (FSI: 0.54);

(D) 50 Teddington Park (FSI: 0.54);

(E) 91 Teddington Park (FSI: 0.54); and

(F) 183 Teddington Park (FSI: 0.54).

53I agree with Mr. Guetter that the proposed increased density as reflected in the FSI variance is achievable without inappropriate massing or built form, and that it meets the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land?

54I find that the FSI variance is desirable for the development of the Subject Property. I accept Mr. Guetter's opinion that the proposed dwelling will not create any inappropriate site conditions with respect to adjacent lots. The dwelling is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood based on what is currently existing and recently approved within the geographic neighbourhood. The FSI variance respects and reinforces the character of the area, and does not result in an overdevelopment of the site.

Is the variance minor?

55I find that the proposed FSI variance is compatible with the buildings in the geographic neighbourhood and does not create undue adverse impacts. I agree with Mr. Guetter that the proposed FSI variance is minor in nature, and will result in a dwelling that is compatible with existing and new development in the neighbourhood.

Conclusion

56In conclusion, the floor space index variance meets the statutory test to be considered a minor variance pursuant to section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

CONCLUSION

57I find that each of the variances individually and cumulatively, meet the four statutory tests for a minor variance outlined in section 45(1) of the Act.

DECISION AND ORDER

58The appeal is allowed, in part, and the variances detailed in paragraph 11 are approved.

59The conditions of approval below have been tweaked from the requested conditions of approval outlined in the Settlement Agreement between the parties dated November 22, 2023. The reason for this is the third requested condition of approval in the Settlement Agreement refers to a privacy screen being installed as shown on a site plan dated October 26, 2023. This is being replaced with a reference to the site plan dated November 14, 2023, as these are the plans referred to in the Settlement Agreement. One additional change is made to the conditions, and that is the addition of a reference to the east elevation drawing for the fourth condition, dealing with the privacy screen on the east side of the third floor balcony.

60The conditions of approval are as follows:

1. The building length, depth and side yard setbacks be developed substantially in accordance with the site plan and side elevation drawings dated November 14, 2023. Without limiting the foregoing, the proposed east side yard setback shall be a minimum of 2.1 metres, with the exception of the projection for the fireplace as shown on the site plan drawing dated November 14, 2023, which shall be setback 1.8 metres from the east property line.

2. Submission of a complete application for a permit to injure or remove a privately owned tree(s), as required, as per City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 813, Trees Article III Private Tree Protection. Without limiting the foregoing, no application shall be filed for a permit to remove Tree #5 as shown in the Arborist Report and Tree Protection Plan dated April 4, 2023.

3. A privacy screen shall be installed on the east side of the first floor terrace, as shown on the site plan and east elevation drawings dated November 14, 2023.

4. A privacy screen shall be installed on the east side of the third floor balcony as shown on the east elevation drawing dated November 14, 2023.

T. Kezwer

Panel Member