One, two. Check. One, two. Okay. >> And it looks like we're live, so I'll hand it over to Karen to start the meeting. Thanks. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh, welcome committee. Uh members of the public are advised that individuals in the media may be audibly and/or visually recording this meeting. I would like to call this meeting of the heritage permit review subcommittee at June 16, 2026 to order. Please note that quorum is present. Uh committee, you have before you the agenda for this meeting. May I have a motion to approve the agenda as presented? See Angie and I see Graham. And is there anyone opposed? Seeing none. And Matthew, if um if you did want to comment since I don't see you because your camera is not on um please just raise your hand electronically. Okay. Thanks. >> Well, thank you. >> Okay. Great. Thanks. And um also is let me just check before we get going. Is um is Sandra on the line? Is that you Sandra 1437? >> I am. >> Okay, great. >> That's Sandra. >> Great. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> Okay. And so same to you. If you do have any questions, please raise electronically. Um all right. So seeing none opposed, uh that motion is carried for the approval of the agenda. Are there any declarations of interest today? Okay. None declared and approval of the minutes of the previous meeting. So you have before you the HPRC meeting minutes of May 19th, 2026. Um may I have a motion to approve the minutes as presented? See Carol, thank you. And Andy, thank you. And is there anyone opposed? Seeing none, that motion is carried. Okay. So, today um we'll be moving on to uh six uh section six on the agenda, which is items for information. We don't have any applications for permit review. However, we do have two presentations. And so our first presentation is um on indigenous relations division training overview of Hamilton's urban indigenous strategy and implementation plan. And so I'm happy to welcome today um Beth Doctor. I'm sorry if I pronounced that incorrectly. Feel free to correct me. And manager of indigenous relations in the indigenous relations division. So um Beth, welcome to the meeting. Thank you for joining us. really appreciate you taking the time and um I will hand it over to you. >> My pleasure. Thank you. So, hello everyone. My name is Beth Doxater. I am the manager of indigenous relations for the city of Hamilton. I am born and raised in the city of Hamilton uh part of the urban indigenous community in Hamilton as well as a member of the United Nations of the Tames River up by London, Ontario. Um very very happy to be here today. Thank you so much for your invitation. I warrant I welcome any opportunity to talk about the work my team does uh within the city of Hamilton. Uh we're kind of a small but mighty team who's tasked with a really large portfolio um that crosses um the entire organization. Um so I'm happy today to be here to give you a little insight into uh the urban indigenous strategy uh the work that we complete um and again very very um happy to be here. So uh do I share my screen or does the presentation get shared? I'll ask staff that. What would you prefer, >> Alissa? >> Through the chair, Alyssa Golden, culture program lead. Um, Beth, if you're able to share on your end and advance the slides, that's great. Otherwise, we can pull it up. Whatever is best for you. >> I got it here. All right. So, bear with me. Sometimes I become a bit of a motor mouth. Um, so I will do my best to stay within the 10 minutes, but not go too fast. Uh, and happy to answer any questions after or any followup. So, just give me two seconds to share my screen. Oh, Alyssa, sorry. Are you there? >> Yep. Right here. >> Sorry. If I share my screen, I can't see my notes. That's the only other issue I'm having. >> Not a problem. I will pull up your slides and share on my end and then you can just let me know when you want to advance. Just one sec. Amazing. Thank you. Okay. Awesome. Yava Alyssa. Okay. So again, here today to present on the urban indigenous strategy and our implementation plan. So just caught an error right from the start. It's not June 2027, it's June 2026 on my first slide. Um however, if we could advance to the next slide, I'd be happy to introduce u my team. So uh our team has exponentially grown over the last um seven years uh that the indigenous strategy has been in implementation. Um, so we originally started with a project manager which has now grown into a team of six people and hopefully and willingly will continue to grow. So, indigenous relations team, who are we? So, we have uh Travis Hill. Travis Hill is a citizen of the Tuscora Nation Beaver Clan. Travis works with our team as the indigenous curator for indigenous culture and heritage with the city of Hamilton and works between the heritage resource management team and the indigenous relations team. We have Jennifer D. Dominico. Um, Jennifer is the senior project manager of indigenous relations and has been in her role since uh 2000 uh 2021 working with the local treaty nations in the urban indigenous community on strategic initiatives and different capacities within the city. We then have Luke Gamakort. He is our project manager of indigenous community outreach and research coordinator for our indigenous relations team. Luke's role is to lead outreach and engagement efforts for the urban indigenous community and surrounding indigenous first nations in Hamilton. I've already introduced myself as again I've worked for the city for the last 15 years. The last four years I've been the uh working on the indigenous relations team um and previously I held the capacity as an Ontario works case manager for 12 years within the city. Uh next slide please Alyssa. Awesome. Next, we have Brandy Pass. There we go. Uh, Brandy is an indigenous woman of mixed race, matei, cre and European descent, and is an intergenerational survivor of the residential school system. Brandy is our project manager of indigenous initiatives and is passionate about building meaningful relationships while supporting the indigenous community. Kate, Caitlyn Leform. Uh, one thing to note is that recently in the last two years, um, we've brought on Kate as our director of indigenous relations, which is really exciting, um, because it catapulted indigenous relations into our own division within the city, um, which is exciting to to have that sort of momentum within the city that um, to be able to run our strategy. So Kate is our director of indigenous relations and is an Anesnab from the Missag to the Credit First Nation on her father's side and Kyuga Bear Clan on her mother's side. Growing up on reserve and returning home after university has provided her with over 13 years of experience working with indigenous communities and partnering agencies and governments. Most recently she was the executive director of intergovernmental affairs for the Missox the Credit First Nation. And then our final team member who's joined recently is Kelly Burnside. So, Kelly is the Indigenous Ve subsidy worker. Uh, Kelly previously worked as an Ontario Works case manager since 2009 and a community relations worker with City Housing Hamilton. Um, Kelly is a First Nations person, an urban indigenous to Hamilton and a member of the Six Nations of the Grand River. So, as you can see, we have a great mix of people. We've um very much grown our team in the last three four years. Um, and uh, I think it's important to note that our team is as a mix of indigenous people and non-indigenous people. Both Kate and I as manager and director are very passionate that it takes all of us to do this type of work. Allies, First Nations people, indigenous people. It takes everyone to do this type of work. So, we're very proud of the fact that we do have allies on our team as well. Next slide, please. Okay, so a little bit of background information. Just give me one second. So, in the spring of 2015, Hamilton City Council committed to developing an urban indigenous strategy that would identify actions and strengthen the city's relationship with indigenous communities and local First Nations. In June 2019, the city released the Hamilton Urban Indigenous Strategy or the UIS, which council endorsed. The city of Hamilton embarked on a journey to reconciliation to honor the history, knowledge, rights, languages, and cultures of the first people of Canada. The UIS identifies actions and charts out a path to reconciliation that aims to strengthen the city's relationship with the indigenous community and our local First Nation communities. The urban indigenous strategy implementation plan was fully endorsed by city council on February the 4th, 2021. The implementation plan is categorized into six working groups that address the recommendations from the strategies final report which will be covered more in detail later in this presentation. The urban indigenous strategy for the city of Hamilton responds to the truth and reconciliation commissions of Canada calls to action and was created based on the voices of our urban indigenous community members and local first nation communities. Next slide please. So the the urban indigenous strategy identifies uh actions to strengthen the city's relationships with the urban indigenous community and treaty nations. So ways that we do this is some of our key objectives of our strategy is to identify actions within municipal jurisdiction and capacity arising from the TRC calls to action to celebrate and honor indigenous people, culture and traditions to promote a greater understanding among all Hamiltonians through public education on histories and contributions of indigenous people and to create opportunities for education and internal collaboration among city staff to strengthen the relationship with the IND. indigenous community. Next slide, please. So, as a way of understanding how the TRC calls to action and community input fit together, excuse me, the urban indigenous strategy uses strategic themes of land, spirit, and people. These themes were chosen as a way to take municipal action to to make a municipal action plan and connected to an indigenous understanding of the relationships indigenous people and humans have to land to each other and spirituality. Each of the themes provide sir care. Each of the themes provide number of strategic actions within the city that should that should be addressing in the UIS and implementation plan. Of the 21 action items prioritized by the indigenous relation team, 13 are in progress. One is ongoing recurring. None have been fully complete and there are seven of the actions what have yet to be initialized initi initiated sorry. We recognize that transitioning the organization to work better and collectively with urban with indigenous people will take time and we continue to make progress that is varied cross departmentally. Some of the actions that are not underway reflect the fact they represent systemic change. These are in broad scope and require significant corporate responsibility to implement. some examples of some of the actions that are currently in progress. So under our people theme number 24, the action is to enable city staff to deliver city services in a culturally appropriate way. So some examples of how we have done that is we have initiated an indigenous specific fee subsidy childare worker in the children and community services division. We seek out opportunities to educate staff internally to be more culturally aware and apply it to their work. um researching and exploring more coordinated ways for municipal services to be delivered to indigenous residents. Another one of our spirit under our spirit actions number 11 is to incorporate more indigenous stories and voices into the city's culture and heritage plans. So what we've done so far is we've established the curator of indigenous heritage and culture which is a role that's held in the heritage resource management division department sorry division uh gathering indigenous perspectives to be added to site monuments through our landmarks and monuments review enhancing exhibit development to highlight indigenous stories at our local museums. Uh landmarks and monuments project will provide additional opportunities. We recently took a report back to council in two 205 reviewing some of the landmarks and monuments within the city of Hamilton. Um and the sorry the consensus was uh sorry the recommendations from our team were there needs to be an opportunity for indigenous voices and stories to be told at these monuments. Um, oftentimes indigenous voices and histories were not included when those monuments were created and we're looking for an opportunity to allow our versions of these monuments to be told as well. Our team has been working with on this project for quite some time and recently we're approved to start the signage. So, right now we're under uh working under a project right now to get the signage created through local uh indigenous historians. So, they will stand side by side at these monuments uh moving forward. Okay. Uh, another big thing um that we're working on right now within under the land uh spirit sorry the land action is number three to improve meaningful consultation with urban indigenous residents and first nations community on municipal projects plans and approvals. So a lot of different consultations happening in different areas of the organization including an active monitoring and input to archaeological projects. We started to circul started to circulate planning applications and involve nations on municipal planning policies and processes actively inviting the urban indigenous community to be a part of working groups. Uh for example, some of the projects we're working on right now, the discovery center, we have members of the urban indigenous community who sit at these strategic planning tables as well within the community as we strive to create a larger network within our urban indigenous community. Uh next slide, please. So as a corporate strategy we uh we need departments to have an active role and ownership and council and mayor for the outcomes of the actions on the UIS to really progress. Every division should be including the UIS actions in the TLC TRC calls to action and their work plans and performance accountabil accountability and development plans. Reconciliation not only requires apologies, reparations. The relearning of Canada's national history and public commemoration also needs real social, political, and economic change. Next slide, please. So the city of H the city's indigenous relations team has focused on furthering the strategy through the foundation of guiding principles through our implementation action plan and aligning the key initiatives. It also guides the city of Hamilton to a place that values intercultural understanding formulating a community-led framework and acknowledging and addressing colonization and supporting goals of reconciliation. While the implementation plan identifies timelines, resources and priorities to move forward with action items identified in the UAS, the progress of our work has been sign significantly delayed by some factors outside of our control such as COVID, the cyber attack, staffing resources and changes. However, we are working hard and getting stuff done within the urban indigenous strategy within the city. Next slide, please. Through the urban indigenous strategy um implementation plan staff have outlinied outlined the process and priorities to move forward on the urban indigenous strategy actions. We've created cross-divisional work groups that have been established to collaborate on the strategy initiatives that began in 2025 and 2026. So the working groups that we currently um have are broken down um be out of the strategy and the call the different spirit land actions. So our six working groups uh and we've sort of taken the actions and plpped them into each one of these buckets. Um these are the um departments and groups that will work on these individual actions within the strategy. So we have a group on education awareness guidance and policies. We have another group two ecological archaeological and natural heritage group. We have group three which is public art museum markers and heritage group. Group four, land, culture and cultural spaces group. Group five, sports, recreation and tourism group. And group six, housing, employment, health and food. So the purpose and the mandate of these groups are to coordinate the associate actions within their division and work collaboratively with those other departments on these actions, help to define details necessary to achieve the actions within the UIS and share information, champion relationship building and identify opportunities for improvement regarding city services and initiatives. Uh the 40 actions that were identified in the UIS are based on consultation with the indigenous communities to create a pathway towards collaboration and awareness which measures commitment through those continued consultation and accountability. The success of this strategy is dependent on the engagement of staff across the corporation and involvement by all city departments. Reconciliation is everyone's work. The indigenous relations division provides leadership and coordinates the working groups and will be responsible for implementing helping to implement specific actions beyond the UIS sorry beyond the urban indigenous strategy and implementation plan. The urban indigenous staff are supporting all levels of leadership across departments along with mayor, city council, advising them on reconciliation journey initiatives including but not limited to infrastructure development, planning files, policy creation and strategic plans for each department and division. The scope of the work the indigenous relations division is responsible for reaches across the organization as a whole and requires support and leadership from staff at all levels. We are a small but mighty team and always happy to help advise in whatever capacity we are able. Next slide please. So some of the examples of work um that we do within the urban indigenous uh strategy um is for number one the urban indigenous uh the UIS corporate implementation which I just explained. Uh we have our days of recognition program. So our days of uh recognition are days like National Indigenous People's Day, National Indigenous History Month, uh Treaties Week, uh National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, and we enhance educational opportunities for staff as well as the public where possible. We help to create um we're looking to create a framework for corporate training programs, rolling out uh indigenous cultural capacity training corporatewide, guidance and advice to other divisions and aart departments. So working on relationship building, relationship agreements, relationship repairing with our local First Nations and treaty partners. Um policy review and other miscellaneous um policies uh and procedures that we are looking at within the city, our fee subsidy role and participating in various subgroup works across divisionally and again whatever we are are tasked to do at that point. I just wanted to highlight a few of the projects that our team has been involved with over the past couple of years. Um, we have been working on the Discovery Center feasibility project and design and redevelopment as well as the West Harbor Library branch that's going to be opening in August of this year down at the Harbor Front at Pier 4. Uh, we've been working on archaeological and EA natural heritage monitoring programs and policies. We work with public works and planning and economic development on various projects that require engagement with our our nations, the bindigan community cup pro project, community and safety well-being plan, the recreation programming, and the list goes on and on. We've also recently um had a few policies that we reviewed. The city of Hamilton has an use of urban sorry the use of indigenous medicines policy which is the way to break down municipal barriers to allow the use of indigenous medicines in our corporate facilities. So we did a lot of engagement review work with with internally to remove all those barriers that people need in order to use our medicines within city facilities. We are currently working on uh reviewing our land acknowledgement uh review and revision, working with our treaty partners and our nations to um come to an understanding of what a good um what a proper land acknowledgement looks like for the city of Hamilton if there's any issues with our current one. Just doing our due diligence. Um and I'm also working on right now the creation of a sacred fire policy and procedure. Um within the city there's a lot of agencies that like to hold sacred fires. We're trying our best to remove any municipal barriers that they would have in order to proceed with these fires. We've been working on an overarching indigenous engagement policy uh for city administration and an indigenous procurement policy. Um we also are very much connected to the community in Hamilton. Um, so within our team, we sit on a municipal connection circle for indigenous relations for all of uh, Canada. Uh, we sit on a couple boards with them to review just all of us doing that work to get that support for for us to be able to do this work. It is hard to do on a lot of times. Um, circle of beads, environment assessment work group, the joint stewardship board. Um, and there's we we sit crossdivisionally on many many projects. Next slide please. So within the work that we do, I think one of the biggest one of the biggest um positive outcomes we could get is allyship. Indigenous allyship is the act of non-indigenous people learning from and supporting indigenous people by amplifying their voices, challenging oppressive systems, and actively working to dismantle settler colonialism. It requires ongoing education, self-reflection, cultural humility, humility, and a deep commitment to recognizing and respecting indigenous peoples inherent rights and expertise and their own realities. Next slide, please. So some key principles of indigenous allyship. I think you know a prime example of indigenous allyship is my invitation here today to speak to your group. Um I think that that's um always an opportunity to educate yourself, learn about the histories and the current realities of indigenous people including topics like inter intergenerational trauma and systemic inequalities. Next, you can amplify indigenous voices. Support and champion indigenousled initiatives and approaches by giving space and power to indigenous people and voices rather than speaking for them. Number three, acknowledge privilege. Recognize the systemat the systemic advantages that settler cultures hold and work to dismantle the barriers that affect indigenous communities. practicing humility and respect, understanding that indigenous people are experts in their own lives and cultures and approaches and approach learning with an open heart and a willingness to be corrected. A commitment to action allyship is an ongoing practice, not a label. It takes taking it take it involves taking consistent action to challenge racism and dismantle oppressive structures and building meaningful relationships. Fostering genuine connections by asking questions, listening and engaging with indigenous communities respectfully and with permission. Next slide please. How to be a work in the alli in sorry how to be an ally in the work that you do. So by first by acknowledging by diversifying your knowledge base, supporting indigenous initi organizations, challenging harmful representations and stereotypes, advocating for policy change, and commit to personal acts of reconciliation personally and professionally. Take time to educate yourself. That can be anything from treaties to understanding local histories of the lands on which you reside. Learning of all the community resources, servicing indigenous people in the community and what supports and programs are available. Supporting indigenous organizations or community initiatives within the city. Speaking up against cultural appropriation and stereotypes when you encounter them. Support political initiatives that promote indigenous rights and well-being. Overall, being an ally is not a one-time act. It's an ongoing practice that requires continuous learning and commitment. The 94 calls to action are 94 policy recommendations made by the TRC Commission of Canada to address the legacy of Canada's residential school system and advance the process of reconciliation with indigenous peoples. They urge governments, courts, business and churches and public to take action on areas such as child welfare, education, language and culture, health, justice, and reconciliation to achieve a future where indigenous children can grow up healthy, safe, and proud. Understanding and reading the 94 calls to action across a Oh, sorry. As a small reminder before we end, everyone should be prioritizing reconciliation all year long, not just in the month of September. And by divers by understanding how you can be an ally in the work that you do is the first step. Last next slide. So again, I just wanted to thank everyone uh a big for having me here today. Um, I understand within 10 minutes is really hard to give a brief overview of everything that we do. I hope that I've given some maybe started the conversation where we continue this conversation ongoing. If there's an open invitation to come back, I'd love our team maybe, you know, every a little couple months to come in and give an update to the committee if they would like. Um, but Alisa, if we could just go to the last slide. I always just like to share some pictures of our team and the work that we do um and the events and we have grown exponentially and it's because of the support like these types of committees like our our uh mayor and council our senior leadership who have really dove into the urban indigenous strategy and given us the opportunity to do this in a good way and have indigenous people at the helm making these decisions which is huge. So again, a huge nowi for everyone's time today. Um, and again, I'm happy to answer any questions or if there's questions afterwards, um, please let me know. And another shameless plug, well maybe not shameless, but this Friday, June 19th, from 12 till 4, we have our National Indigenous People's Day celebration down at uh Pier 4 at all our relations, those beautiful uh structures we have down at Pier 4 Park. Uh we have uh many performers coming. We have an exciting uh we've never had one in the city before, an Inuit throat singer. Um we have some matey fiddler. We have performances from Missag Credit First Nation and Six Nations as well as a gigantic vendor market. Um we have some over 20 indigenous vendors. We're going to be down there on Friday. Um and usually, just to preface, we do usually do it on June 21st. However, there's a long-standing other event that's always the same weekend in Hamilton, which is the Soaring Spirits Festival. And because we're so well entrenched in the community, we didn't want anyone to have to choose their events. So we moved ours to the 19th just for this month. So there was no cont there was no contention between the two. We want everyone to go to the swearing spirits festival as well which is held from Friday to Sunday down at Battlefield um field cult museum and park. So again >> okay Beth, thank you so much. That was fascinating and I had no idea that that much activity was going on in Hamilton. So that that's actually really good to hear. Um, is there anyone on the committee have any questions for Beth? I see Graham. Please go ahead, Graham and Steve. Okay. After >> Thank you very much for uh coming and joining us, Beth. We really appreciate it. As you know, this came out of a a heritage permit first started the conversation. So I first thing I want to do is apologize. I won't be able to join you Friday because we have the Ontario Heritage Conference coming into Hamilton that day, right? >> And we picked a very bad day, the overlap event sadly. Uh so hopefully next year I'll get a chance to join you. Uh now how can we as a a committee assist the indigenous people in their journey to make things better for them and the city? >> I think it's the biggest thing is building those relationships and those the understanding and reaching out to the communities and understanding what they want to be involved in. And I think at this point, you know, a per a prime example was when when we brought the 77 gauge to this procment review was the comments we received back warmed my heart and it honestly made me feel that there is a wave of change and that people do want to see that and you know Graham some of your comments during that committee meeting wherein that's how you be an ally and then you invited me back to share my knowledge and our program and our strategy with that and so I think that you know just asking questions building your own relationships within the community and then just continuing your own learning is the biggest journey and these and I always preface with saying please just get involved in the community. Our events, our indigenous events in the city are for everyone and we very much use those as educational opportunities to highlight what we're doing in the city where people can go for supports where people can do that as well. Um and you can always reach out to our team. Um, we have an indigenous relations page within the city where we promote all of our events, all of our learning, all of our opportunities. Um, and if you ever wanted to do any further training, our team has a list of different trainings we can provide or ones that we've sourced already. Um, but I think the biggest thing is just a genuine understanding of allowing indigenous people to lead the work that they're doing and by understanding and being creative wherein, you know, a lot of the times the struggle we run into is that when we're trying to be innovative, this whole strategy is tasked with doing something in a culturally appropriate way. And so if you know we have we have the um opportunity to do things differently than we've done it in the city, we need to do so. We can't just fall back to the well that's just how we've always done it. Well, is there a different way that we can do that that works within both? And so very much um think that just the education, building the relationships and being vocal in the community and supporting that. When you hear other things, you hear other, you know, ideas that maybe aren't aligning to the way you think, please speak up and say that out loud to people and, you know, continue those conversations. My team is absolutely willing to be a support in any. You can feel free to reach out to myself or my team through our indigenous relations email. Um but again I think those are just the I think this this committee is on the right track is just that first in invitation to come in and have a conversation and sit down and see what evolves from there. That's how you build relationships. >> Nice. >> Thank you. Uh part of my exposure to the truth and reconciliation was an amazing young lady who came to speak to us first nations person who came to speak to us at Brockville, one of the previous heritage conferences. And one sentence she said that I'll never forget is nothing for us without us. And that just sticks in your head. That's what you have we have to understand that we're not leading the conversation sometimes. We're listening to it >> and that's how you're an ally, right? And you're absolutely right is that two voices are better than one. And so, you know, indigenous people have felt very much so that our voices have been stifled or contained or our knowledge wasn't, you know, valuable. But it's again having that idea that we get to lead the way. We don't need others to lead the way for us. We need people to stand beside us and do the work and support us. And that's reconciliation. It's not about indigenous people. And again, indigenous people, reconciliation is an indigenous people's work. It's we can work together on it, but it's also the responsibility of non-indigenous people. And so I think that you know just coming to like again this is a perfect example of us building a relationship that will be ongoing where we can continue to come back and update the group and again if there's anything else we can provide assistance with we are absolutely happy to >> great. >> Thank you. So I'll let someone else ask a question >> now. >> I think I saw Steve had a comment or question. Yeah, I'm not sure what it is if it's a question or a comment or just an idea, but Beth, maybe you can help me turn this into something, but um I guess while I was listening to you, you know, I was I was thinking about the the work that this committee does. You know, we're um often interpreting um a bylaw about, you know, heritage and architectural features and that sort of thing. I mean, a lot of the time we're trying to preserve structures and buildings, but I'm realizing after listening to you today, I mean, all of those structures and buildings and houses and everything that we talk about here, it's it's a reflection of of arguably one very specific culture and, you know, a relatively small slice of of historical time period, too, right? So, and there's there's a lot of um legislation and bylaws, policies, and all that sort of stuff, you know, designed to really specifically support and uphold these artifacts of of one specific settler culture, you know, and and I'm just it's it's making me realize kind of an aha moment of of sorts that I can't articulate. um putting all these resources, you know, and laws into work, you know, to to preserve this element of of uh my culture. You know, I wonder, you know, will your team be able to look at, you know, maybe the bylaws and stuff that inform the work that, you know, a committee like this one does, so that, you know, it's it's not always just, you know, one culture and and its heritage at at the cost of others being preserved. >> Absolutely. Thank you for that question. And I think that that um is what these implementation groups are. So I've actually written down what you said because again that's a great suggestion and it's it's this work is new, right? So we're always looking to evolve in different ways. And I think the fear comes when there's this feeling that we're we're trying to take over someone else's history or someone else's, you know, version of what happened. But that's two things can be true at the same time where I think the 77 gauge project there respectfully showed that we can change a building's appearance for a reason of reconciliation however still maintain the integrity of the heritess of that building. So those two things can coexist at the same time. And I think that that's where we need to lean more towards is that coordination of our resources and our understanding and having the ability to bend those rules a little bit and maybe change those rules just as you were mentioning. And that's where again for example if I can compare it to something else we have a use of indigenous medicines policy and so I kind of giggled and at the point where it was being created nobody was using indigenous medicines in the city. So we someone created this policy and procedure with every consideration you can have. However, the only people it was restrict restricting from using medicines was me and my team. It made us have a 5-day window. I had to turn off the HVAC. We had to call facilities. We had to do all these types of things. And my point was, you know, I don't have to notify you if I want to take an Advil, but if I want to use my medicines in my office, I need to tell you 5 days before, shut down the HVAC. And so I used it as an educational opportunity where I brought together directors into to one of these meetings rooms and I lit up my smudge bowl and they all looked around and said, "Oh my goodness, it doesn't it won't it won't set the sprinklers off. It won't set this off. It won't do that." And so what were we so afraid of? And so that's where again my job is to show that this can be done. And I just need that support from others to think outside the box and say, "Hey, we have an opportunity to be innovative." And again, I really honestly believe it's about that collaboration and that working together so that both people are getting what they want of the situation. Often times they think, you know, we're trying to elevate indigenous voices over everyone's voices. I think the difference is indigenous voices have been down here. We want to be side by side. That's what the two worldam talked about was everyone's in their own canoe. We can go side by side, but we don't need that weaving in and out. And I think that we're at the precipice where we're all at this age where we want to learn. We understand those tragedies. I am the granddaughter still of two residential school survivors who went to the Mushwall Mohawk Institute in Brford. I'm dealing with the intergenerational trauma of living in the city and now I've tasked myself with doing this work and it's all of my family is in some type of reconciliation work because we believe in it. But I also believe in again working together and once we do we'll have that that synergy of being able to make effective change that satisfies everyone that isn't so scary. When we started the landmarks and monuments review, I think the idea was that indigenous people are coming to take away our histories. No, we just want ours heard too and it can sit beside yours. And even if it's different than yours, those two things are true. We've done the research. We have our own historians. We know ourselves Beth and best. And just like Graham said, nothing with us without us. You can't write about us anymore unless we're involved in that and those things moving forward. So, I think that that idea of those bylaw changes and all of that. But again, I never want the oppression to be that we're trying to make radical change. We are trying to layer that change that feels good for everyone. And so we're all involved in that reconciliation. So I hope that's helpful, Steve. And if you'd like further conversation, absolutely happy to happy to have it. >> Oh, thanks. Yeah, I appreciate that. Yeah. >> Um Alyssa. Yes. >> Thanks, Karen. And just building off of um Beth's very thoughtful comments on our side of things in terms of our team and how we approach writing designation bylaws, there's been a concerted effort to reflect broader understandings and cultural histories and um we've had a few examples more recently where we've um you know done research but then consulted with uh folks like Travis and Luke on the indigenous relations team in terms of the indigenous component of the histories that we're telling and making sure that we're telling um appropriately and with the right tone and um two hot street is a great example of where we're sort of weaving together an understanding of what was happening at the time in terms of indigenous history also black history. Um so something that we you know as Beth was mentioning in terms of what we can do as allies and weave into our work. That's sort of one component that we're continuing to work and grow on and um hopefully getting to a point where we're um telling much more complex rich histories that aren't just sort of how designation bylaws used to be written back in the 70s and until more recently um that were um you know singular in terms of the story that they were telling. >> Yeah, that's awesome. Um um what I can also commit to do is um to share any education opportunities with this committee um that we put on throughout the city. Um we will be having some more um um open events within uh the month of September, some education opportunities, all those different types of things. And again, if you ever want to look at our website, it's always up to date with resources, with training, with um opportunities for events within the city. Um but this summer um there's going to be lots of opportunities to engage with the urban indigenous community and I very much encourage you to go out and start to introduce yourself and you know shake some hands and make some relationships and you know I think that that's how we're going to move this work in this city forward a lot more. So now all of you for your time I really appreciate it. Oh, thank you, Beth. That was excellent. And yeah, as as I guess as Steve was saying, you know, it's just kind of like wanting to look with a slightly broader viewpoint than maybe we had been too focused before just, you know, bigger lens. So, so really appreciate that and um yeah, and I certainly hope we can see you in the future and look for some opportunities to invite you back >> or if you see things that you need to bring to us, then absolutely love to hear from you. >> Absolutely. Awesome. Well, now everyone have a great meeting. >> Okay. Thank you, Beth. Take care. >> Bye. >> Thanks, Beth. >> Okay. Um, so next agenda item is, oh, item 6.2 and, uh, heritage process review, staff presentation and consultation on proposed updates to heritage procedural bylaw. And with that, I would like to ask Alyssa to please take the floor. >> Thanks, Karen. And sorry just before we start just could we get a mover and second her just to receive best >> received the presentation. May I have a mover and a seconder to receive that presentation? I see Carol and I see Steve. So thank you for that and uh Steve and is there anyone opposed? See none that is accepted. Received. Received. Okay. Thank you. All right. Now is it your turn, Alyssa? >> Yes. Thanks, Karen. Just pulling up my slides. >> And if you can keep it to five minutes, that'd be great. >> I will do my best. Um, well, thankfully I had given folks a bit of an introduction last month because we were much faster than we had anticipated with our agenda previously. Um, but again, my name is Alyssa Golden. I'm the culture heritage program lead here at the city of Hamilton. And today we're looking to do some consultation with you folks on the subcommittee about potential changes to our heritage permit process and improvements that we're looking to implement. >> And we did include on the agenda um some background information as well. I know I gave a bit of this overview um last month, so I won't go through it in great detail, but essentially this has been a project that's been ongoing since 2014. Um there was council direction for staff to review not just our permit process, but also our designation process. And we had outlined a terms of reference for what that review would include. And a significant amount of work was done back at that time including a best practice review, significant amount of consultation and um the development of recommendations for improvements to both of those processes more broadly here at the city. And that culminated in stakeholder workshop that we had with key stakeholders including um heritage advocates, heritage committee and subcommittee members, designated property owners. Um unfortunately following that there was a bit of a hiatus and um staff change over and those ch those privilege changes never came forward but we did also see some other changes that forced change individually. So um we saw um thankfully some formalization of how the subcommittee was run. That was one of the challenges that really led to the initial process review. Um so by formalizing and now publishing our agendas and live streaming the subcommittee that addressed a lot of the challenges that we were experiencing before in terms of transparency and clarity of process um we also had some legislative changes that came into effect that sort of forced our hand um including bill 108 and then more recently bill 23. So, a large part of what was in the initial review um was really dealt with through bill 23 in particular in terms of our designation process and what we're left with as a part of the original review was really to focus on how we can improve our heritage permit process. So, fast forwarding to today, um what are our project goals? What still sort of stands? Really, we're looking to streamline our heritage processes to help decrease processing time, improve the efficiency of how we work as staff and as a city. Uh we have some additional legislative changes to the Heritage Act that we still need to address. We still want to provide as much clarity and transparency terms of what our process is for heritage applications and requests. And we have a couple of outstanding business list items. These are things that we said we would report back on and haven't yet, including things like a um notice of intention demolish process for listed properties, but outside of the purview of you folks. Um and what we're proposing is to implement sort of a procedural bylaw for heritage that would address a lot of these uh outstanding process changes and hopefully through this consultation and consultation with heritage committee look to bring actual recommendations forward before the next term of these two committees so that we can really start fresh with the new term of council and the committees um moving forward. So, I'm not sure if folks had a chance to take a look at um some of the background materials just for some context, but a lot of this work um previously was discussed has been sort of addressed again by things that have happened since that stakeholder workshop took place. So, back previously, we were looking at two main changes to the heritage permit process. One was potentially restructuring how permit review itself worked. Uh we had considered whether we keep the subcommittee and at the time we still had crossmail excuse me. Uh we also looked at how we might restructure those committees make them potentially only advisory to staff and not public committees that are need to be live streamed. Um and we also looked at potentially dissolving both committees and shifting that function up to the main heritage committee. Um the other main aspect that we previously looked at was just the idea of streamlining delegated approval. Um which we'll get into a little bit more. Um but as I noted, we've seen changes already to a permit process. Um the cross Melville advisory committee was actually already dissolved. Um so that aspects been dealt with and generally what we heard through the previous work was that the permit reubmittee still held a very important function and folks didn't want to see it dissolved. Um, so really what we're focusing on is um, no further changes to how this subcommittee works, but how do we streamline the delegated approval process for certain types of applications that um, this committee and heritage committee are comfortable um, delegating just to staff. So, I'll get into that detail a little bit more in a second, but um we also just have some general improvements to how we administer heritage permits that we were proposing. Um so, over the last few years, we now under the heritage act, there's now submission material requirements that are outlined in the legislation. Um, we do have that information online, but looking to formalize that in align with what the province requires to be submitted with certain types of heritage permit applications. Uh, we'd also be looking to extend what our current standard expiry is for our permits, which is two years, and extend that to three years. And part of that is just uh what we're seeing anecdotally in terms of how long projects are taking. Um the reality of the economy and actually getting contractors and being able to do the work and completed in time. Um and that three years is a much more reasonable timeline for most of our permits. Um looking at clarifying some of the terms around uh delegated approval um extensions. So right now we typically process a potential extension to a heritage permit only before it's expired and we do that as part of a um part of the uh authority of the director of our um of planning to be able to make minor changes to an existing permit. So that's kind of vague in terms of the authority to do that. we'd look at just confirming and clarifying that authority to to be able to provide extensions and actually put that in a potential procedural bylaw so that that is quite clear. Um we'd also look at providing delegated authority to staff to be able to enter into agreements with owners. So technically under the Heritage Act we have a required legislative processing time for all permits 90 days from the time of a complete application. Um, generally we're processing things much more quickly than that, but sometimes really complex ones, 90 days might be a tough timeline and technically the act allows us as a city to enter into an agreement with an owner to extend that timeline mutually like through a mutual agreement. Um, that would require going to council currently. So providing delegated authority to staff would mean that we could work directly with owners and that would really streamline that process in those situations where we're both in agreement that more time would be helpful to process those applications. And then finally in terms of administrative improvements um really trying to clarify council's ultimate authority. So right now most of what you folks see at this subcommittee are permits that we can approve through delegated authority after we consult with you. Um the way that our current delegated authority bylaw is written uh is a little bit vague in terms of whether at any point council could say actually we undelegate that authority to staff. Um so really clarifying that that is possible and this comes out of um really what prompted the the permit review when we're dealing with the James Street Baptist Church in terms of how that permit was interpreted as an alteration. And by clarifying council's ultimate authority, it means at any any time council could say no, we're going to make this decision on this permit. Any questions in terms of these highle sort of administrative types of updates? I'll sort of pause throughout just because there's a lot of information. I'd love to get feedback from folks, but um you can save your questions to the end if that's easier, but I might just pause and see if there's any specific questions while we're on particular topics through the presentation. >> Um Graham, go ahead. >> Even though it does delegated authority, don't doesn't council have the ultimate final answer when they approve our minutes and pull out the items such as we had with uh on that uh municipal heritage committee minutes when they pulled the gate house out to talk about. So for the premise that this subcommittee sees the majority of them, we after consulting with you folks and if we're in agreement that both staff and the subcommittee um recommend approval of the application, we issue we write a report. It goes to the director of planning and chief planner and that they issue a letter that is the approval for that permit. The information of what delegated approvals are issued and the letters then go on heritage committee for information only. So they're already approved at that point. Those cannot be reversed. It's only while the permit is still being considered before a decision is made that in theory council could sort of retain their ultimate authority. Um the item that you're referring to in terms of the gate house that was a situation where a recommendation from the heritage committee went to planning committee and then there was sort of a reversal and a discussion. So that's a bit of a different process but the majority of permits that you folks see um we issue approvals under the delegated authority of staff after we consult with you. So those those are the final decisions. >> Okay. Okay, let's go back a couple year or a few years and uh Pinehurst. Remember how that got again taken over by the heritage committee who didn't approve of the minutes to change the parameters around uh the permit. So that's a little more that's a larger scale project. I understand that. But isn't that kind of the same idea with all things that came through? So through the chair in that case the scope of that application and what was proposed that required us to write a report after we consulted with the subcommittee to go to the heritage committee and then move forward to council for a decision. So that's similar to any sort of demolition related to a part 4 part 5 property or new construction in a heritage district. There's certain scopes of work under the Heritage Act that cannot be delegated and those have to go after consulting with you up through heritage committee and then to council for a decision. >> Thank you for clarifying that for me. >> No problem. Okay. I don't see any other questions I don't think. Do I Are there any other questions? >> Not at this point. Okay. Um Okay. Uh I guess you could carry on then. Thank you, Alyssa. Super. Um, and then some additional administrative improvements that are recommended. So, as a part of a a procedural bylaw to sort of revamp our delegated approval process, um, we'd want to help define some terms. Um, so, one thing we're proposing is defining what maintenance is and then exempting it from heritage permits. Now, we often make these calls as staff ourselves in terms of is this an impact or not? Um, but having it laid out in a procedural bylaw would make that very clear to us, to the committee, and to property owners. And we'll touch on that in a sec. The main one we'll consult on is streamlining the delegated authority for certain types of minor repairs and alterations. We'll go through that in more detail. Um, and then also defining what an impact is and what minor is to provide some clarity on how these decisions are made. Um these are things also that sort of came out of our existing process. Again going back to the James Street Baptist Church application originally in terms of our existing delegated authority references what could be a minor alteration but not there's no explanation and so that sort of led to some ambiguity of how it's interpreted and and how permits are are processed. So, I'll just share before we get into sort of the meat of it, which is the streamlining part. I'll just share um what we would propose would be put into the definition of maintenance. Hopefully, folks had a chance to take a look at these ahead of time like uh staff had suggested. Um there's two slides, so I'll just sort of sit on the first one here. But generally what we're trying to identify is things that we don't really have an impact to heritage attributes that are very common types scopes of work that aren't concerning um that we want to be clear that these are defined as maintenance and do not need a heritage permit. So things like landscape gardening, um replacement of broken glass, so not replacing an entire window, but maybe a pain in a window. Um roofing where you're not changing sort of the color materials or design. So ashall for ashva for an example. Um repainting, not painting something that wasn't previously painted, but repainting it. And then uh general sort of repair of non-heritage attributes. So, say you're replacing East Troughs in kind, contemporary troughs or um a railing, things like that that aren't specifically heritage attributes that are designated. And these are things that we generally make these calls on already, but this is providing some clarity. I'll go to the next one and then happy to pause and and talk about any of them. Um replacement of exterior lights. So, think about, you know, imagine we had every property owner saying, "I want to replace my contemporary light on the front of my house and asking if they need a heritage permit." So, really clarifying that. Um, replacement in kind of sidewalks or driveways where you're not widening or changing the materials. Um, fencing is one that comes up a lot. So, just being clear about non-heritage fencing where they aren't actually identified attributes and people's ability to replace fencing in kind. And then also, you know, as we potentially do new heritage districts moving forward, anything else that's also defined as maintenance within those district plans. So, hopefully those are relatively straightforward. Um, any of these definitions of maintenance that folks have any questions or concerns about or want to chat about? >> Um, Graeme, go ahead. >> Okay. Uh, first off is the repainting. So when you say repainting, they want to go from a color appropriate to pink. Would that come to us or is that going to still be done through you? >> Great question, Graham. So technically we don't regulate color. None of our heritage designation or heritage um conservation districts plans have any policies regulating color. And I suppose a judgment call would need to be made in terms of like a visual impact. Um, >> sorry, Lisa was just pointing out the one below in terms of Yeah. So, I mean, I think we would probably make a judgment call if there was a um a although no physical impact, a significant visual impact of something like that. But that's a challenging one because technically we do not regulate color and we don't have policies that regulate color. If there's some concern about that, we could um add some additional language to this one to be clear that we think that there's no impact on the heritage attributes of the property similar to the uh item F below. Some sort of language to sort of >> I was thinking more of a heritage district impact as opposed to individual property. >> And uh when it comes to the fencing, >> wait, wait, wait. Let's talk about the painting first. >> Oh, okay, sir. >> Sure. Okay. Um just on that point, so the language that we could use and what we would include in the bylaw, heritage attributes would mean either um features that are identified in a part designated property. So whether it's a contemporary bylaw that actually lists the attributes or the reasons for designation in an older bylaw. And then it would also include whatever the heritage attributes or reasons for designation were for a district. So if there are features that are specifically identified or policies that speak to that um that would need to be taken into account. Would that cover off that concern? >> Yes. Just you just want to maintain uh the look like that we wanted to designate in the first place or previous committees have. >> Okay. Why don't we take that back as staff and see what that language could look like to address that before we sort of finalize things and and bring that forward moving forward. Does that sound okay? >> Yeah. And I would second what Graeme said, too. I think that paint color is is significantly important. It can totally change the look of something you Right. And I mean, you can have a building that's red brick, natural red brick, whatever, original red brick, and then they paint it blue. And it is a very different building. And I I mean, I know we've been told before we can't comment on color, and I I find that surprising. And I would think that if it's one of the few things we really should be commenting on, and Carol, I see you're nodding as well. So, thank you. Yeah. Okay. Um, anyone else want to comment on the paint or do we move on to another? >> You got Matthew's hand up. >> Oh, okay. Sorry, he's not on my screen this second. Okay, Matthew, please go ahead. >> Uh, it actually wasn't related to paint. It was related to another uh item uh maintenance item. >> Okay. Well, you know what? I think we've probably covered off paint, so why don't you go and then we can come back to Graham with his fencing. >> Oh, great. Oh, thank you. Uh, thanks, Chair. Um yeah I my my question was related to to sea uh glass and broken windows and I think it's themed you know possibly similar in the same vein as as discussion about the paint. I think there's there's a concern that this this could lead to an opport lead to a scenario where there's some value engineering that occurs. Um, I'm particularly concerned about uh a scenario with a broken window where maybe there is a historical element or something like frosted glass or stained glass where there is some historical significance. Would that definition include uh the um type or design of the glass? >> That's a great question. Um, we can certainly provide that clarification in terms of where the glass to be replaced is not a specific heritage attribute. Like I'm thinking if it was a contemporary window and the pane is being replaced, obviously we have no concerns. But yes, in the situation you're describing, if it's potentially a um uh a stained glass window, a transom, something like that, we don't want that just to be swapped out without any review. So, that's a great point, and we can add some clarification language there on that one. >> Okay. Um All right, Graham. Thank you. Okay. Now when it comes to fencing, so they want to change their fence, right? Because you have repair replacement of fence is not identified as heritage attributes. But let's say at the moment you got a three- foot high picket fence and now they want to put a 7 foot high fence where it's going to block the view the sight lines from the public right away. Do we still have some control over that? >> Yeah, great point. I would say how I is currently written uh I would say yes that would need a heritage permit. So as it's written it's only where it's similar materials design and footprint. Um I would we can clarify I would think design would include height but if that's not clear we can clarify that that also includes height in its design. So, for example, if it's an existing six-foot, you know, pressuretreated wood fence and they're replacing it pretty much with the exact same thing that that doesn't need to come to you folks uh or us. It would just be maintenance. But yes, if they were replacing a contemporary 3-ft fence and proposing now a sixoot fence, that's obviously going to be not a similar design. So, that would not be maintenance. >> Yeah. I just wanted to make sure that we come and like we do see these ones because it makes a huge difference in a sight line of a street when you or even just viewing the building that we've designated. You could block the view very easily. >> That makes a lot of sense. We can definitely make that change. That sounds good. >> Thank you. Okay. >> Is there anyone else who has hand up? I see Andy. Please go ahead. >> Uh yeah, through the chair. Uh just a quick question regarding uh the um maintenance trees. A lot of the uh heritage districts have very large trees. Mil Street Her is one of them. Uh and some of these trees are 75 to 100 years old or older. Uh I'm just curious on the um if somebody was to one remove a 100-year-old uh let's say maple tree uh on their front lawn obviously going to affect the streetscape quite a bit. Um is that still needed for a permit or they have to get an arborist report on it if it is um starting to um uh you know fall ill. Um, I'm just I'm just not sure where where we're at with the tree maintenance. I know that branches that are dying off, you can trim them up and what have you, but if it's a complete tree removal of a 100redyear plus um your old tree, I'm just curious if um what would happen in those situations if a permit is needed or not. Thank you. >> Yep. Thanks, Andy. Um, so for the definition of maintenance, tree removal would not be included. They would be like limb trimming, general good good husbandry type of practice for maintaining a tree. That would not include entire tree removal. Um, and we'll touch on later in the streamline component potential scopes of work related to trees as well um that might be delegated directly to staff. So, we can touch on this potential removal of dead or dying trees and what might be needed in a little bit. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. Are there any other comments on this section? These specific maintenance items? I don't see any other hands. I don't think uh no. Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, carry on, please. Thanks. >> Super. >> Thanks. Um the next two definitions that I mentioned are would provide some clarity in terms of how we're interpreting um what might be delegated directly to staff and what has to come back through you folks for review. Um the first is around the idea of what an impact is. And this is actually language in terms of displacement effects and disruption effects is what we already do as a part of our internal review when we're writing um a recommendation report that goes to the the chief planner for a delegated authority or you might have seen also we we do this review in staff reports that go to heritage committee as well. So really looking at displacement. So anything that results in any damage, loss or removal of heritage attributes and disruption. That's where potentially the color of paint could come in if it was really egregious. Um so changes that might result actions that might result in changes to the setting or character of a heritage property. Um and then also looking to define the idea of what minor is in relation to those potential impacts. And um the idea of what minor would be would be low potential impact because of either what's being done, where it's being done, or the the scope of or size of what's being done. So those are sort of two general definitions we're proposing to include. And these might make a little bit more sense as we go through the streamlined list in a second. Um so maybe I'll hold any questions on these until we review those and we can revisit this if that would be helpful. That sounds good. >> Okay. >> All right. So, the meat of it, I know I'm glad we spend that much time on the maintenance. That's exactly what I was hoping we would do in terms of nitpicking some of the language and just really understanding what the subcommittee is potentially comfortable with. And yeah, this is fantastic. Um, but the main part of it is really looking to streamline um our delegated authority staff. So, as I mentioned, currently all heritage permits um do have to go through the subcommittee for advice. The majority of them are processed through delegated authority that we already have. So, ultimately, it's council's um decision what happens with the heritage permit, but for certain types of permits, we can consult with you and then issue approvals as staff. Um, as I mentioned earlier, this does not extend to certain types of applications like demolition, new construction, or the ability to refuse a huge permit. That's one that does not come up very often. Um, so you see everything and most of what you see we just issue approvals right after. Some of that then goes to heritage committee and then goes to council for a decision. What we are proposing in terms of streamlining that is in a bylaw identifying a list of what we would consider to be minor types of alterations that this committee and hopefully heritage committee would both be comfortable delegating just directly to staff. So you would not need to see them. And we want to make sure there's a comfort level. We're trying to improve how quickly we can process some of these applications. um you know processing times for applicants, but also some of these are relatively straightforward and really safety considerations as well. Um we want to make sure that you folks have really are using your time well and appropriately and are are commenting on the types of applications where there's really value in you folks reviewing them. Um so we have a list of what we think makes sense for this and as you would have seen in the materials we provided um most of these we actually reviewed at that stakeholder workshop back in 2015 as well and there was generally support for them. Um but if we could go through them in detail that would be great and this is where we'll spend most of our time. Does that description make sense in terms of the concept? So, what we're about to go through are types of permits that you folks are comfortable would be comfortable not having reviewed and that we just as staff would would process. Okay. >> Um, can I say when we go through this honestly by looking at this and I I read everyone and gave it all a lot of thought, I I had trouble coming up with a lot of things that would still come to this committee. So that would be helpful if you could also kind of define what sort of things that might actually still be on the list for come here. Okay, >> that's helpful. We don't have that off the top of our heads, but that could be something that we take back and have prepared for when we consult next with heritage committee. Um, Lisa's also done a helpful initial review of sort of the last couple of years and pulled out what potentially would be streamlined based on this proposal. Um, I'm sorry we didn't have that in time to to circulate to you folks to assist with this review, but I would say anything where there's a direct impact to a heritage feature or attribute that's designated. Um anything where you know anything substantial like demolition or removal of features. Um significant additions to designated properties. Um anything that still is undelegated like new construction within a heritage district. Those would all be coming to you. Um that's just off the top of my head. But how about we go through these and then if any more come to mind as we're going through we can >> we can highlight that. >> Okay. Thanks. >> But great point Karen. Thank you. Um so there's a few pages. So um I'm not sure if folks had read through ahead of time there's any that come to mind but we could spend some time on each page. um first that we were looking at now right now we have two policy documents that are heritage committee and council endorsed. We have our um historic masonry restoration guidelines and we have heritage window guidelines. Um this first one would really see if someone is doing essentially repointing something masonry repair related and in accordance with the guidelines then you folks would need to see it. So, if they give us all the information we need, we know what type of mortar they're using, what method they're using, and it all meets the existing council approved guidelines, then we can just issue that approval of staff and not come back through you folks. That's the intent of it. And the way that this first one is worded also if we were to develop other policy documents in the future. Um so say we implemented like a a commemoration or signage policy document working with yourselves and with um the heritage committee and then that got approved then anything compliant with that in the future would also be exempt from having to go through the subcommittee for advice. Okay. Um, this second one is probably the one that is a little bit pushing it and I'm curious to see what folks's thoughts are, but we have existing heritage district plans for seven districts and are soon to hopefully be eighth district in Dundas. Um, and they have policies, guidelines that are outlined in them. And what we'd be proposing is anything that's compliant with those guidelines that we know meets the applicable policies in the plan that wouldn't have to come through you folks. And that does not include removal of additions or new additions that are visible from the public right of way. That one might be pretty wide sweeping. I could see maybe not wanting to give up review of all of those. But in theory, if we have adopted plans and was proposed as meeting those plans, then it should be a relatively straightforward permit. Okay, next one. Number three, um, installation or replacement of removable storm windows and doors with historically accurate materials and design. So these are things often we see um through grant applications as well where we're already reviewing the details of them and you know they for example maybe taking off an aluminum storm and proposing to put a new wood storm that's one over one and it meets the intent of what we would want. something like that potentially just coming straight through staff. Okay. Um number four is installation of city designation interpretive and commemorative plaques. This is something that especially if um we're in the talks we're in sort of initial works of potentially bringing forward recommendations for a new designation plaquing program. So if we do end up doing a lot more plaing moving forward, um this would really help streamline those approvals really these typically include how are you mounting them to the building and it's the same sort of standard conditions of you know um the right types of screws uh into the mortar joints were feasible when it's a masonry building that kind of thing. So those should be relatively straightforward. Um hopefully folks will be comfortable with those. Number five, um, installation of temporary exhibitions or interpretive materials, wayfinding, signage, um, in situations where they're minor reversible renovations, and this is only for city- owned properties. So thinking about if there's a temporary exhibit that's going in um you know there's very little physical intervention and what they're doing is reversible. There might be more of um um disruption effect in terms of the visual impact of it temporarily but looking to potentially streamline those through staff and not come through the subcommittee. So kind of like those signs for the Junos that were going to be on the bridge. >> That's a good example. Technically, as they had proposed them, there was no physical impact, they were all intended to be sort of tension fit. Yeah, that's a great example. Now, had that proposal been different and there was a physical impact, then that would have been something that would have gone through you folks. Okay. All right, page number two. Um, installation of window decals. So, these are things like bird friendly decals that are installed on windows. I think we saw this as a part of maybe the wood end application. Did they have the wood >> window decals on that one? >> I think so. And then there was also inquiries about putting it on the chamber. >> Oh, yes. and here at city hall that has hasn't come through yet, but there is discussion of maybe putting these installations um at city hall just with all the glass of this building. >> Um so this is something that there is no physical impact for. There's very minimal visual impact. Um and it's reversible. Uh it's something that we're seeing a lot more inquiries about, especially in terms of just environmental initiatives and um trying to reduce impacts to birds and bird deaths for some of our buildings. Okay. >> Um number seven, installation of security lighting and cameras that in staff's opinion will have a will have minor impacts on the heritage attributes. This is where these definitions are important. Um so one example is uh we had the gardener's cottage on Dumpsy on the edge of the um Dund National Historic Site and they were looking at installing a temporary security light until they do their restoration work. They technically needed to drill a single hole through the masonry to install it. um something like that, you know, probably not going to be very much change to to what's being proposed. Um so looking to streamline that directly through staff. Number eight, uh installation of accessibility interventions that in staff's opinion will have minor impacts on the heritage attributes. So, for this one, there's probably a couple to consider and think about. Um, I think the one that Lisa processed most recently, the exterior accessibility here at city hall where the extra railing was added to the just the hind at the wishbone where the, you know, it's being installed into modern concrete, but there's still a disruption. So heritage permit was triggered but something like that is a relatively minor impact to the actual heritage attributes of the property. Um something like the Terzo flooring though that probably would not be minor. Um and I know we had a lot of debate on that. So just want to clarify sort of two different approaches in terms of how that would be processed. And another good accessibility example, the recent one in um water down with the ramp for the school. That would not be minor. That's a pretty that's a substantial intervention in terms of the ramp and you folks had a lot of great valuable feedback on the design related to that. So that type of application would still be coming through you folks. >> Um Graham. Yes. Go ahead. >> Or do Yeah. Go ahead. >> No, I did. Yeah. Uh let's go back to the Terrarazzo. You're talking about the uh where the site impaired where they put the the bumps at the edges. >> Yeah. The tactile indicators that were installed at the top of the stairs. Yeah. >> I cannot remember that word. Uh I I know that's you did I said is not uh a minor one but to me that kind of is because the techniques they have to collect the dust and collect the material if they ever wanted to reverse it. I don't ever see that being reversed. Like you look at how long that project got delayed for approval on that permit. Right? So, if they're going to do stuff like that where we've already approved it once like that, I don't see why you would have to come back to us again for a similar project. >> Anyone else have a feeling on that one? >> I mean, from a staff perspective, that's encouraging to hear. I think I think if it was a different intervention with fewer drill holes, maybe that would be more clear that it's a minor impact. Um, but if this subcommittee generally after going through that experience and learning about all the different techniques of what was being done with that, um, and assuming that that's that level of detail is provided as a part of a future application for a similar intervention. If this subcommittee is comfortable with something like that being streamlined directly to staff, then we can certainly provide more clarity in terms of interpreting that. But based on how much dialogue happened on that one, I would have assumed the opposite. >> Yes. But once they came with that particular design, because you remember you came with six or seven different ideas to begin with, a lot of them were more impactful to the the floor and the surroundings and visually impactful as well. Whereas you look at those little bumps that are there for the tactile right now. To me, it was a very minor change to make a huge impact on a disabled person's life or potential impact. And >> I really don't see how you're going to handle any other intervention like that in any other building in a less impactful way than that particular one we chose. >> I think Graham what they're saying is that um say they the proposal was different than those bumps >> and then they come bigger whatever so then you probably would want to see it and you have the opportunity to comment. >> Yeah. If it was going to be exactly the same, sure, who could argue? But >> yeah, that committee said, "We've already we already hashed it through quite well on that one because that was through two different heritage permit review subcommittees, and they came to the Heritage Municipal Heritage Committee to talk about an accessibility issues, uh, the Ontario Disabilities Act, and we really learned a lot through the process, and that was how we decided to handle it." And I can say that was the least impactful thing we have. And I can't really see any other floor in front of a staircase being handled in any different way in the future because it is the least impactful. >> Well, you say that, but it might be different applicants, right, for different m different places. So, right, say it was a different building. It wasn't owned by the city. >> Would you really want to just say we don't want to see it? Well, I'm going to say if it's a a tazzle floor in front of a staircase, we're going to put tactile things in, the only thing that's going to really matter is the color of the tactile parts that they're going to use. But again, that was just my personal opinion. And that's why I asked if anybody else had a different one. >> Yeah. No, that's one project and one type of application, but there could be anything like it could be any kind of accessibility application, right, for any other kind of building, any other kind of owner. So I think you don't want to say we never want to see them. >> Yeah. And I think if I could add to that, so I mean how this is currently worded, I would say that that level of impact would be physical impact would be more than minor even though the visual impact is minor. Um, but maybe the better way to approach streamlining some of that is for us to maybe prioritize a policy document that speaks to accessibility interventions and different types of like flooring or locations. And then that way something like the intervention that was done here with the tactile flooring in the Turzo or the tactile indicators in the Toronto that can be clearly laid out as something that you know has been reviewed and we know how th those impacts are being mitigated and as long as an application is submitted that provides all that information then that could be addressed by staff. Otherwise, we would fall back on this number eight and determine if it's minor or not and then it would come to you folks. >> Yeah. Like I said, to me that uh uh amount of discussion we had left us with a best practice for that style like in a >> either a any kind of masonary floor, ceramic floor in front of a staircase. I think we got to a best practice possible on that one. And it took a lot of work, a lot of meeting, a lot of discussion. It wasn't an easy one, but once we saw that one and especially anyone like Karen at city hall with me a lot, you see it and you hardly even notice it anymore except when you go to step on that staircase. >> Yeah. Yeah. I agree. It's great. It's just a matter of what if we get an application from someone who has completely different ideas. >> That's all. >> Yeah. And I think I think what I've noted here, I think what would make sense is to leave the language for this as is, but to look to prioritize accessibility guidelines that could be could fall under number one in the future that has that particular best practice laid out for that type of intervention as well as anything else that we might research or come up between now and then to to put in that document. So that that's also covered off in the future. >> That would be great because I said I just looked at what we went through and I think if we can have a great policy written around it, well that would be helpful. I did want to make a comment back to the the heritage districts if we didn't when we get a chance. >> Okay. Well, well, yeah. Uh should we go back to it now since Go ahead, Graham. Point two. Is that it? Yeah, that one there. That can be a pretty pretty open thing, right? Where that's the one that kind of scares me the most. So, I don't know. We we could work on again on a on a policy of what we would like to see come through to us. Like again, minor stuff. Yes, we understand. But we start getting a little bit larger where you think it doesn't impact it as much as we might. That's where you start getting the the worries. >> Yeah, I think that makes a lot of sense. Like I said, this this one's pushing it. So if there are reservations, I think we still have so far what we've gone through, we still have a good number of ones that I think will be helpful in terms of efficiency. So if this one gets removed or we can take that back and see if there's any further clarification before we bring it to heritage committee. Um I think that makes a lot of sense. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Okay, just making that note. Um, and then last one on this page number nine, installation of mechanical and electrical equipment. Uh, things like vent stacks, exhaust pipes that have to penetrate through the building envelope, but only in areas where they're inconspicuous, not visible from the public right ofway, and generally have a minor impact to heritage attributes. So, think about someone's doing interior renovations and they have to pop out a vent for, you know, a kitchen hood or for a bathroom. And generally those things are required by code. There's probably very little we can do in terms of where that needs to be. And if those are generally in inconspicuous areas that you can't see from the public right of way anyways, then the visual impact is is minor. But in cases where they're front and center and uh they're going to impact, you know, what you can see from the public right of way, then those would not be delegated. Those would come back through you folks. >> So like the mutual burrito vent that came out on the Sheran property, the Canot property, remember that a couple years ago? >> Oh, I don't remember that one off the top of my head. or the one that was the safe injection site I think it was where they were taking out a stained glass window that would come to us right >> that yes and any anywhere where there's actually impacts more than minor impacts to a heritage attribute so if they're proposing replacing a window with a vent that's different this isn't in this is contemplating you know a a small pipe vent that has to pop through the building envelope that's Not visible from the street. >> Yeah. Or or a air conditioner on the top of Grace Valley Church >> in the back. >> Right. >> In the back. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> But not Yeah. Not Not something that you're seeing on the roof from the street. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Cuz like the one in the mutual burrito was in the contemporary windows on the main floor. They had to put something in. I >> But I would assume if you're if you're changing the orientation of like a window opening, turning it into a vent, that would not sort of meet this definition of this particular. >> Yeah. Okay. >> I mean, that's certainly a best practice when someone's adaptively reusing a building, you have existing window openings, try to create maybe ventilate through one of those openings instead of making a new opening. But that would be a much larger initiative and that would would not be something that would be just through staff that would come through you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you for all this level of detail. We have couple more slides. All right. This next one number 10. Um installation of >> Carol. Sorry, Carol had a comment. >> Oh, sorry, Carol. Go ahead. Um yeah, I just uh wondered if it would be a good time um to go back to point one before we get farther on because I'm not very clear on um the uh the policy document for historic windows. And this actually uh point one refers to the conservation of uh and probably restoration of windows. And I know we get a lot of window um windows involved in the permit uh the permits that the uh permit applications that we see. So I'm trying to recall if I have seen the policy on historic windows and if it uh it talks about how to restore them or does it actually uh show people who apply to do perhaps replacement of windows? Um, does it does it show them u the sort of styles that go with their particular um period of um of their building. Um, and that I noticed comes up and I would hope that we would get to see that if it involves replacing windows because um, I noticed in some of the um, applications we've reviewed, there have been uh, some compromises which are fairly considerable on the type of window that goes say in an heritage district in a particular uh, say an Edwardian home or um, a late Victorian home that the windows do not what they want to replace the window with is something that is a more practical solution like a casement window over a sash window. So I guess just to summarize what what I thought I might you know need to review is the policy document for historic windows that I can't remember reading or seeing and also uh that way I would know what is um included in it and um and also does it cover replacement of windows as opposed to just conservation restoration of the windows that are there. Thanks Carol. That's a great great question. So technically we have historic window guidelines. These were the this was sort of the first guideline document that uh went through heritage committee for approval. It's really more of a brochure uh compared to the second policy document that we that was prepared which is the masonry restoration guidelines which is a very detailed sort of point by point different types of method material you should be using the windows guidelines which we can share a link to afterwards does not go into the level of detail that you're describing Carol. So, I would say basically if they're not repairing a window um with appropriate measures or unless we update that policy document, that document currently does not really provide any relief. It's right now I would say the only document we have that would fit into one appropriately is the masonry restoration guidelines, but we can share that with you uh with the with the subcommittee. So, you can take a look. If you have any other feedback, you can let us know. Um, >> that'd be great. >> And maybe we can maybe we can reword this and clarify because I think we've talked about internally that our goal would be to want to update that windows guideline to be more detailed like you're describing. Um, because I think it'd be helpful not just for administering permits, but just for property owners information and helping better guide them in their decision- making. Um, but we could up we could revise how one is worded and maybe just reference the historic masonry guidelines now as being an existing approved policy and then reference other potential future policies including windows signage blacking. >> Great. >> And maybe um when those new ones are drafted up that would be I think the committee might want the opportunity to review them and comment. Oh yes. So that anything that I mean the existing documents that we have were were produced by heritage committee. Um they went through the policy and design working group originally. They went through the subcommittee and heritage committee before they were council approved. So we would expect the same process. I'm not sure if it would be staff initiating it or potentially working with policy and design first and then consulting with you folks. But yes, that would be the expectation. >> Okay. Great. Thank you. >> Oh, Lisa's just suggesting before I get back to where we were at, just checking any more questions on this first slide of items one through five. Not seeing any. Okay, >> I don't have any. Any more questions on six through nine? >> No. >> Okay. Super. And yes, this is where we're at. Yeah. Okay. On to number 10. um installation of pools in a rear yard uh in a heritage district where they're not visible from the public right of way and there's no impacts to heritage attributes. So think of, you know, um technically this is an intervention in the district, but if they're not impacting, say a mature tree, uh that you can see from the public right ofway or something like that, then this type of thing does not need to come through you folks. Uh we did chat through how depending on where a pool is installed, they might have to put a fence um in terms of meeting code requirements, but if we can't see that fence from the public right away, if it's behind another fence or other vegetation or something like that, then we would just process that through staff. >> Okay. Is this any different from putting on a deck in the back or is that different because the deck might be actually touching the heritage building? >> Um, great question. We currently in terms of sort of our review of whether there is an impact if we are if someone is installing a deck and we cannot see that deck from the public right of way. anything in essentially in a heritage district that you can't see from the public right of way unless it's complete new construction or demolition like a new garage or something else that we can't void or can't wave um that doesn't require heritage permit already. >> Okay, >> that was a really complicated answer. Sorry. Did that make sense? >> No, but no, are you saying the pool does require a heritage permit right now? No, it doesn't. I we want to be clear that if there that this Yeah, actually Karen, let me just think for a second. Why do we have this in here? If there's no impacts to heritage attributes and it's not visible, do we even need this? That's a great question. We currently say care Lisa is just pulling up our list of on our heritage permit page but legislatively >> if it's not visible >> if it's not visible. Thanks for questioning this. I don't think we even need to put this because it would not trigger a permit. This is actually one that we had on the list that we consulted with back in 2015 and this is why this kind of conversation >> people got on the committee. Yeah. not actually necessary. Okay, thank you. Okay. Um 11. Removal of signage or alterations to signage that don't significantly change their location, dimensions, building coverage unless that signage is a heritage attribute. So, think about there's already a sign board. It's a contemporary sign board on a designated property. there's a change of who the tenant is in that commercial property and they change the sign but there's no that sign itself is not a heritage attribute. It's contemporary. They're not changing its location or dimensions. That would not need to go through you folks. There could be minor physical impacts to the building as a result of it, but generally that would help um sort of streamline applications for new businesses who need to put in a new signage essentially. This one might be a little bit more challenging. I know you folks >> Yeah, >> I see Graham has his hand up. I know you folks have a lot of comments on like stone the stone terrace as an example. a lot of the signage that's gone up there lately. So, yeah, looking for any feedback you have on this. >> Okay, I can think of two signs that we've recently done. The uh the African restaurant in the William Thomas building and then the Let's go back to my Mucho Burrito. Uh I don't know if you know, Mucho Burrito is no longer there. It is now a Starbucks. I just happened to notice that last week when I was going down taking some pictures for the heritage conference and the new sign that went in to that spot. I don't know if it's the exact same or not. I didn't have time to go investigate. It's ugly. It's a horrible material. It looks goddy. where we negotiated with Mutual Burrito to put a nice looking sign up with some texture to it and all that stuff. So, we're going to have to get good wording in place when it comes to the sign policy of what they can and can't change on a heritage building. So, if anyone's got some time and they want to walk or buy the canot and take a look at that Starbucks sign, you'll see what I'm talking about. It's not attractive on the building. Okay, that's helpful, Graeme. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. >> I was just going to say I mean when I was doing the pre-eread, I also thought >> I mean alterations that don't significantly change its location, dimensions, or building coverage that may, it's true, they may not change, but you can certainly change the look of a sign and make it go from quite acceptable on a heritage building to something hideous, right? So, I think it either you need more qualifiers here or they maybe still should come to to this permit review. Okay, I think that's fair. I think similar to what we were talking about with the repainting and with the um what was the other one that was policy related? I think it might make sense to remove this one and then look to include more detail and best practice in a potential signage policy and address it that way instead. >> Okay. >> Yes, sir. >> That's a great idea. Thank you. >> All right. And I see some other committee members nodding. So, all right. Thank you. >> Okay. Super. This is going great. Um 12. Here's where we circle back, Andy. Removal of trees identified by a qualified tree professional and licensed tree cutter as being significantly or completely dead or as a public safety concern. So, I'll just preface that this language we consulted with our colleagues in forestry who are also concurrently working on an urban tree strategy or urban forest strategy, sorry, and are looking to potentially regulate the cutting of private trees as well. This policy would apply to both public and private trees, but uh we would define these terms and work with forestry to define them. But essentially, they want to make sure that qualified people are determining whether the tree is significantly or completely dead to justify their removal. And the idea would be that this would come through staff because it's an immediate concern really. There's there's no arguing about whether it's safe or or dead or not. and we can't technically require replanting that's a best practice obviously. >> Um so to have these just come through staff and be able to process these as quickly as possible because it's usually a safety matter. >> Now to your earlier question or point Andy just curious I know you probably will want to know that that's happening especially like in the waterown district. Um is there a level of comfort with this? I mean I guess the issue is we would report the same way we do now. It would be on the heritage committee agenda in terms of the approval having been provided. We don't have any other sort of notification process in place. >> Yeah. Go ahead Andy. >> Uh through the chair. So if um if some of these are being decided um by staff. Um is there any update to our committee that this actually was um approved just to let you know this in case somebody sees a tree come down in a neighborhood and then call calls it in and say listen there's no permit that came through and this is a you know 150 year old tree and it's being torn down. Is there any update that that staff would give like at the beginning of these meetings or something just to let you know? um this has been approved or is it just just sort of it's been approved and it's gone through the share? >> Yeah, that's a great question Andy. Right now we haven't contemplated that. Right now within our current process when after we consult with you folks and we uh process a delegated approval letter, it only goes on the heritage committee agenda um for their information. But why don't we take that back and think about logistically I mean I don't necessarily want to have like a redundant process but since we won't be in theory if this is approved moving forward we wouldn't be consulting with the subcommittee on these applications. So >> items for information >> it could be yeah under items and for information or there could be worked into the into the heritage bylaw some expected process of notification for this subcommittee on permits that are approved through the through a streamlined authority. I mean, that would be interesting. But you I mean, currently you already approve things, lots of things, if I'm not mistaken, because I would ask questions. You know, a roof looks like it's being worked on. You said, "Oh, it's okay. We already gave them permission." So, there's already things like that happening now, right? And we never hear about them. >> Yeah. There's scopes of work where we make an interpretation of whether or not something requires a heritage permit. So like some of the things that we're looking to define as maintenance for example like replacing an ashalt roof like for like where there's no vis visual or visual or physical impact those things don't require her permit so there's no formal approval that's happening but we're confirming with an owner. Um so yeah there's no reporting on things like that but in theory everything that does require a permit currently you folks see. So yeah, how could we provide clear reporting back to you folks on things that if this is approved >> that we as staff are approving without your review so you know that that's taking place. Could we have just like a a list of things just like uh what the project was and the address and we put it was a delegated approval. And just when you give us our documents every month, just add it to that document list and we review them and anything that we have a concern with, we can ask you about it just to make sure that we're all sticking with the same foot for a couple years as we pull stuff out. We understand that we're not overstepping bounds or you aren't overstepping bounds or we aren't being overly concerned because we do get questioned in the public realm about projects, right? Yeah, I think that makes sense. Well, especially, yes, if this moving forward, if this is approved, we'll want to be checking in and understanding if we need to tweak things and if our understanding on both sides is clear. Um, so let's let's take that back in terms of what that reporting process would look like. I mean, we've talked about trying to get all of our heritage permits um mapped as well. um maybe it's something we could look at putting on our website in terms of recently approved permits and having that be a little bit more accessible. But I think that makes a lot of sense. Um so let us take that back and come up with some suggestions of how that reporting might work. >> Yeah. And that might be good for transparency for the public as well, right? Having it there on your website. >> Yeah, for sure. Okay, great comment. Just making that note. One sec. Okay. Um, and then similarly along the line of trees, planting of new trees where there's no or only minor impacts to heritage attributes. So, you know, I'm thinking there's been a lot of initiatives lately to replace trees that have been lost or to proactively plant as a part of the climate change strategy. Um, obviously, if trees are being planted in a way that would be impacting a landscape that's protected and as a heritage attribute, that would be different. But if you're sort of adding trees to an existing wood lot or area within a park that's designated or something like that, in theory, we could streamline that process. Um, >> sorry, what was that? >> Replacing street trees. >> Or yes, Lisa just said or replacing street trees. So thinking about the boulevard where um in that case we have a heritage district plan that speaks to the the species of trees that are appropriate. So if they're planting within that in theory those would just go back through staff and not through you folks. Um but I know there's we've had a lot of conversation about trees. So yeah just trying to get a sense of if there's a comfort level for that one. Yeah, I I I understand what you're talking about and I really miss David Balin's report on playing on the trees on the boulevard. >> Yeah. Okay. And then the last one around the foundation. >> See, Matthew has his hand up. >> Oh, Dizzy, I'm sorry, Matthew. Please go ahead. >> Oh, that's okay. I've been toggling off and on and off uh camera. Yeah, I I just wanted to note I I think um when there have been discussions about trees, it's always been a challenge I think for um uh other than one of us uh to to speak to it because uh just of the uh or varying different uh varying degrees of knowledge of of horiculture and uh and um I don't believe certainly myself not an an arborist. So um I really appreciate you reaching out to to forestry. Um, I think they uh I'm happy that we've reached out to them. Uh, and I think that covers our I I think it covers our basis. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Super. >> Thanks. >> Okay. Okay. And then the last one on this page, um, repairs to the foundation of a building or structure, uh, including installation of weeping tile where there are no anticipated impacts to the heritage attributes. So, this one we're seeing a lot more in terms of people retrofitting. They might need to dig to do this work, but then they're restoring the the grounds to what they were before after, and we don't see what they've done. Um, so there's no visual impact. Um, and also only when it's appropriate in terms of the type of material and what's the intervention that's taking place. Um, but we're seeing a lot more of this and a lot more of these types of applications coming forward. So if there's a comfort level, we think that this is something that's straightforward enough that we as staff could process. >> Yeah, I do have a little comment on that one. >> Graeme, go ahead. Yeah, a lot of foundation works where they put weeping towel in and put in new uh membranes on the outside of buildings and the modern products and techniques. They will remain above grade. So, you're going to have to be careful how you word that because there'll always be a visual impact like uh the school down in the east end there off Birch and uh the corner of Marklin and James, right? Those are two one they got a permit, one they didn't get a permit. You know what I mean? And if you look today, you can still see that dimple stuff above. Great. that you're talking about the spa at the corner. Yes, we we had a long conversation about that. In that case, >> I know that that's been a challenging one. Um it should not be visible like they they should be grading away and it should be covered. Um so in that situation, I mean that's more of an enforcement issue in terms of dealing with how the permit was executed. Um but in theory if works are being done and the grounds are being restored after the works are being done then that should be straightforward. >> That'd be something that the heritage staff and city staff will have to bylaw staff sorry will have to really make sure that they keep an eye on because it is pretty easy to do a poor job in the visual side of that.