Oh, are you folks there? >> Yeah, we are. >> We just had a technical issue. I'm sorry, we went offline. We're just going to check. We lost our connection. >> Oh. No, we were all still here. >> Okay, just 1 second. Lisa just needs to check if we're still online here. That was fun. So, because we hit 7:00. This never happened. >> [laughter] >> I take full responsibility for how long this review is taking. [laughter] >> No, it looks like we're still good. >> We're still live on the >> Yeah. >> I think of how many short meetings we had already, so this makes up for just taking up some time for the ones that were very fast. >> up for it. Yeah. Um Let's just confirm everything is good in terms of the stream. You're seeing me still on there? Okay. >> Yeah. >> All right, let me re-share. Sorry, folks. Okay, and should see my slide again. >> Yep. >> Wonderful. Sorry about that technical difficulty. Um I was just saying that for number 14, um maybe it'd be helpful to remove this one cuz maybe having folks come through the subcommittee would be a helpful reinforcement for what they should not be doing and making sure that they're returning the grounds to a non-visually impacted state after they do the foundation work. Is that sort of how >> I'm sure the committee would be fine to review these things if you think that it's better coming from us than from staff because Okay. Well, let's remove that one then. That might That might just be the easiest way. Okay. Thank you, everyone. I know we have one more to go through in detail. We're almost there. Um this is the other one, 15, that similar to the district plan alignment one is a bit of a push. So, we'll see what you folks think, but um restoration, repair, restoration, or replication of heritage attributes. And we list different types of attributes that might be included. Provided that the same or historically accurate types of materials are used with details replicating the existing attributes or original ones that are based on historic documentation. So, in theory, if someone is repairing windows, um rebuilding a porch based on a historic image that shows what the original porch looked like, this might be of a bit of a stretch, but in theory, these are things that are all positive that we want to see. And as long as they provide the documentation necessary to show the extent of what they're doing, that it's not based on conjecture, then that would be supported, but maybe this is one that you folks actually would rather see cuz these are good news stories that you don't get to see as often. >> Yes, I would say um sorry, maybe you weren't finished, but I would say absolutely. This is I mean, this is It's similar to the other one about the entire Heritage Conservation District, right? It's like so long as you're going to follow exactly what you should do, then we don't want to hear about it. And I'm not sure if that's the case. I think we do like to hear some things. Um and and I I find that the committee often gives valuable input and advice to applicants, so I don't >> Okay, any other thoughts? Similar to Karen or >> I agree, Liz. I was about to say something and Karen beat me to it. >> [snorts] >> Is there any extent of this one? Like could we whittle this down? Is there any component of this that you think could be streamlined or is everything that's outlined in this one you'd like to see? Cuz it covers a lot. >> Well, okay. So, how does this mesh with the one about if they're going to be doing stuff to the windows, it's going to follow the window guidelines. If they're doing stuff to the masonry, it's going to follow the masonry guidelines. And then we don't need That's sort of overlaps with that one, doesn't it? Aspects of this? >> Yeah, that's a good point. There could be scopes of work that maybe are addressed by both of them in the future. But that's subject to actually having those additional policies approved and in place. So, until that time, this item could cover that off. I'm sensing and hearing hesitation. So, I feel like >> Yeah, I don't >> remove this one or we think about it some more and if we have any suggested changes, bring that back, but thinking maybe we remove this one. >> Yeah, this one we got to put a pin in, I think. >> I think I mean the thing is there's some that are so easy to look at and go, "Yeah, that's obviously we really don't need to see that. They're going to just replace their sidewalk." But in this case, this is really about the heritage attributes, right? Yeah. Okay. Um 16 emergency repairs. And in theory we would define what emergency repairs are in the bylaw. Um and sort of the parameters of that, but the idea being that these are time-sensitive things that are matters of public safety. >> Mhm. >> That in theory would just come back through staff so they could be processed as quickly as possible. >> Anybody have any concerns about that one? I don't think so. >> I think I think I think when it comes to public safety it's going to be too important for us to actually take the time to talk about it. Right? Cuz this You're talking about like a bulging wall where it can potentially fall. >> Well, to be clear, there would be a difference between something that is technically unsafe under the building code act and something that's more a matter of public safety. Um so maybe we need to rethink how that is worded and or consult more with heritage committee in terms of the definition of emergency repairs. I'm sorry I don't have that in the slide to be able to chat through. But you'd be looking for that distinction, just understanding the the extent and the scope of that. >> Yep. >> Okay. Okay. Um extension of an expiry date of an approved heritage permit before it expires. So, that's something we already do, but this would just confirm that. >> Mhm. >> And then revision or amendments to previously approved permits where the additional sort of proposed changes are minor in nature or they're included within this list. So, this is already what we have on our standard permits, the minor changes coming back through staff, but having it in this bylaw would clarify that in the scope of it. Okay. >> Uh yeah, yeah, you're saying where they are minor you specify that they're minor. Yeah, and that's fine. That's already in there. So, I mean that's already how we run it and it seems to be okay, right? Committee? Yep. >> Okay. We're almost at the end. Sorry, folks. I know this is a >> [sighs] >> This is a long one, but it's really helpful and valuable and hopefully it's going to improve our how we do things moving forward. Um just some quick additional notes. So, now that we've taken this feedback, our our goal is to move forward and bring a recommendation and ideally we would implement this as I mentioned through a new bylaw. So, it would replace our existing delegated authority bylaw and um that will be a much more intensive document, but essentially it would include the definitions we went over, maintenance, the list of the types of applications that are streamlined directly to staff that don't require review through the subcommittee, and would also include schedules as I mentioned in terms of clarifying what needs to be submitted with heritage permits depending on the type of permit, and that's related to the Heritage Act requirements. We would look to then update our online forms for our permit applications to align with the changes that are approved. And also update our website as well to make all of that clear to property owners and the public. And then next steps, so we in addition to consulting with you folks, we had previously consulted with the policy and design working group and got their feedback. Um we're going to take your feedback and tweak some additional things before we then consult with um sorry, we're going to consult with Heritage Committee on the draft of what we've just shown you uh at their next meeting on June 26th and then we're going to get all the feedback that we got from everyone and prepare a final report that will go through Heritage Committee. So our goal is to hopefully have a new bylaw adopted and in place that outlines all of this process change before the next term of this subcommittee. >> That's an aggressive goal, good for you. >> It's very aggressive, yes. >> [laughter] >> Okay. >> How's that going to work with you not leading the push though, Melissa? >> Well, that was going to be my closing remarks, Graham. >> Oh, sorry. I burst your bubble. >> [laughter] >> That's okay. For those who don't know, I'll be going on maternity leave. Uh my last day is June 30th, but you are in good, capable hands with the rest of the team and um I wanted to be able to at least do this consultation with you folks and then the rest of the team will push it over the finish line. Um I really appreciate all of this detailed feedback. I know that took a lot of time, but hopefully you found it valuable and helpful and it's definitely going to be helpful for us coming up with our final recommendations. Um if there is anything else that comes up after this that, you know, you think about some more, please let us know as well, and we'll take that into account. Um otherwise, if there's no other final comments on this, if we could get a mover and second it to just receive that, that would be great. >> Okay, I see Carol, and I see Andy. Thank you. And yeah, Alyssa, I appreciate you going through this in such detail, and I think it's, you know, everything that we can do to streamline this whole process. It's going so well now, especially with all the new designations and such, and everything we can do to kind of help out is it's great. It's always moving forward, continuous quality improvement, right? So. And congratulations. Woohoo! Fantastic. >> I just want to say I'm happy you guys do ask us these questions. Cuz let's face it, you could just go to council and get them all implemented, and not not consider our feelings and our thoughts. I think it's fantastic that the staff is asking. >> I appreciate that, Graham. As much as it's just common sense in terms of best practice, actually legislatively, under the Heritage Act, we can only delegate these things to staff after consulting. So, that's a required step regardless, but obviously, we work so closely with you folks, and we need to make sure that what we're proposing, before we bring it forward in a report, is something that the subcommittee and Heritage Committee will actually be comfortable with, right? >> Okay. All right, then. Well, uh committee, thank you for all your input too, and taking the time this evening. Thought it was great, great feedback, appreciate it. And as there is no further business, I will adjourn the meeting at 7:13. Thank you. See you all. Okay. Thanks, Karen. >> Goodnight, everyone. >> Take care. >> Goodnight. >> Amen.