Heritage Guelph

0:02I have to be done it to a clock today and I know him does as well.

0:06So are there any concerns with moving that one up to the start of the agenda just to make sure that individual gets to present today?

0:13Staff member is not available yet to present.

0:18Oh, it's a staff member. Okay, we'll keep going then and we'll see what we can do.

0:22We can defer that item to the next meeting if necessary.

0:26Okay.

0:27All right. Well, officially then, hello everyone. I'd like to call to order the January 13, 2020, 2025 meeting of Heritage Guelph.

0:35Welcome committee members, staff and any invited guests who are attending the meeting.

0:39My first item is our land acknowledgement.

0:42As we gather, let us take time to reflect on our privilege to live and work in Guelph, a city built over rich indigenous histories.

0:49We are guests here and we should reflect upon the responsibility to care for this land, the people who live here today, and the generations to come.

0:57If our actions today can move us towards reconciliation, we should take pause and make those decisions with intention and gratitude.

1:04This place we call Guelph has served as traditional lands and a place of refuge for many peoples over time, but more specifically the Attawan, Durunk and the Haudenosaunee.

1:13This land is held as a treaty lands and territory with the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation.

1:19Guelph lies directly adjacent to the Haldeman tract and is part of a long established traditional hunting ground for the six nations of the Grand River.

1:26Many First Nations Inuit and Métis peoples who have come from across Turtle Island call Guelph home today.

1:33So our next item is 1.2 disclosure of pecuniary interests and general nature thereof.

1:39I'll note that Alex did submit a revised list of motions in particular for item 2.3.

1:46There includes discussions around some university-equal properties.

1:50So I'm declaring my conflict of nature there because our conflict of interest given that they are my employer.

1:56So Kim is going to chair that item so I don't have any issues and I did submit my form like an hour ago.

2:02So it should be in there as well.

2:04Are there any other disclosures before we move on?

2:11No. I'm a fast talker and I feel like I'm talking fast today too to make sure we can get through some stuff.

2:17All right. Then our next item is approval of the minutes.

2:21So if there's someone to move that the minutes from December 2nd 2024 meeting of Heritage Guelph committee be approved.

2:29Sure. Miranda in here. We're talking about moving I think.

2:33Miranda moved and I see Laura has her hand up and I'm going to say that Laura is seconding and all those in favor.

2:39Thank you.

2:43Thank you.

2:45All right.

2:47So we'll get into our committee items.

2:50So the first is 785 York Road amended heritage impact assessment, which is referred from the December meeting and it's a presentation with Stephen.

3:01Thank you, chair. I'm just going to get the right screen up here.

3:21And I'm going to try and I'm not going to race through this, but I want to be very economical with my time.

3:27I'll open with introducing this.

3:30It said it this the purpose of this particular item is to introduce infrastructure Ontario's intention to demolish the powerhouse building and chimney stack and another building within 785 York Road.

3:50It's an item that was deferred from the December 2nd meeting of last year.

3:55So what I'm going to do is just read through.

4:01As but they've worked, they've given the high points of the report in order to.

4:07And then I'm happy to be part of discussion with the committee.

4:11So, as I mentioned, the purpose of the reports to make the committee aware of the province's plans to remove the powerhouse and chimney.

4:19Also, the service tunnel and the cannery storage building.

4:23These removals are intended to be they are necessary in the province's view in order to remediate the soil and groundwater and eliminate the current health hazards in this part of the site.

4:38So the cannery storage building was not included in the original HIA, which was reviewed by heritage 12th of the April 2023 meeting.

4:48And that is now included within the buildings that are affected by these these considerations.

4:59It's important to point out and I have in the the aspects of the report and reiterate that in the court itself that there's designation under section 29 or part 4 or part 5 of the Heritage Act and even listing on the Heritage Register.

5:17Cannot come into full force and effect on a property that is under provincial worship and that is the case with sub-native like your food.

5:26Part 3 of the Ontario Heritage Act remains applicable to the property.

5:30And as described in the draft or the amended heritage impact assessment, infrastructure Ontario continues to plan for the removal of the powerhouse tunnel and cannery.

5:44To facilitate the remediation activities. This is so subject to ministers consent and the mitigation measures that are identified in the HIA.

5:54The and in the HIA 5 alternative options are identified.

6:04The first would be to do nothing.

6:07Second is to relocate the powerhouse and cannery storage.

6:11Third would be to retain or chimney service tunnel and cannery storage.

6:17And the fourth element would be to retain partially retained.

6:26And fifth element to retain a portion or more.

6:31The through the with the advice of the Heritage Impact Assessment province or infrastructure Ontario has.

6:41Has decided that the first option, which is to do nothing is not an option.

6:45And that's due to the fact that the liability of the contaminated site program that the crown is subject to and obligated to to reduce the environmental liability of the site.

7:00The idea of.

7:03Relocating the buildings is not considered a viable option.

7:08The third, fourth and fifth option that are considered in the HIA.

7:13Are the most challenging and expensive options and infrastructure Ontario is of the opinion that this these options would become untenable.

7:26And the within the fifth option, which amounts to retention or a portion of walls of the property, sort of the chimney.

7:37When this in December, when this was being considered or up for consideration by Heritage 12 infrastructure Ontario at that time, it said that currently the detailed structural and investigations had not been completed.

7:52To inform whether retention of some or all of the buildings was was possible or viable.

8:03And I have received communication from infrastructure Ontario since that time.

8:09So.

8:11The purpose or the discussion with Heritage 12 is to give the committee an opportunity to pass a motion to indicate their position on the proposed demolition.

8:25And as I mentioned that ministers consent is required for this proposed demolition and that an application to demolish would be submitted to the city of Gwelford.

8:36Follow the municipal application process.

8:39No demolition permit has been received as as to date by the city of Gwelford.

8:45I'm just going to read from or basically paraphrase from an email that I received from infrastructure Ontario in just just before this meeting.

8:57And infrastructure Ontario has reviewed this request, the request that is part of the recommendation from staff, you can see in this report to Heritage Gwelford.

9:08We've reviewed the request with their environmental director and asset review team.

9:14And that the possible retention of part of the chimney stack would be challenging because all foundations of building need to be removed for the remediation, making retaining a wall unbiable.

9:30The full extension of the excavation remediation, including sloping that's required is also expected to extend into the area of the chimney.

9:41So fully removing the contaminants for health and safety purposes is being prioritized.

9:49And unfortunately the past efforts to remove them while retaining all buildings as outlined in the HIA has not been successful.

9:58So I always stated they need to mitigate the decision to take down the buildings as best they can.

10:03And while it may not be possible to retain portions in situ, they'll be looking to see what portions in the buildings can be salvaged and potentially used for future commemoration.

10:15So with that, I would return the committee to staff recommendations.

10:20There are two.

10:22And I'm happy to answer any questions that committee members.

10:37Thanks, Steven. Questions, comments from anyone?

10:44Alex and then David, yep.

10:47Just a quick question on the communication from IO.

10:52So when they are referring to having to remove the foundation is that removing the soil under the existing foundation of the building.

11:01All the way to the foundation, presumably goes down and then there's soil and it's better on it.

11:06Got to move that.

11:08That is correct.

11:10When you said there's two recommendations, is that so?

11:18Can I understand that right? One for the chimney, one for the power?

11:24Through the chair, David, I was referring to the two recommendations that are at the beginning of the staff report.

11:31All take brief.

11:33So all okay.

11:35One first be to for receipt of the amended heritage impact assessment.

11:40On the second one, is there any kind table?

11:48Do you have any idea how long such a process would take for the assessment of the through the structural investigations?

11:58For that sustainability here.

12:01Through the chair, I'm not aware of a specific schedule.

12:04Although I know that infrastructure Ontario is looking to make a recommendation to the minister imminently.

12:14And it is my understanding that in order to create a complete report to the minister, all these.

12:22This would probably be considered unfinished business that would be resolved before before the minister can make a decision as to.

12:32Any thoughts of.

12:35This posing of the property or sale of the property.

12:39So just in terms of where where this goes, if we pass the recommendation.

12:45Then does that go to where does that go to the structure interior?

12:49That's correct.

12:51And in fact, and it's up to them. It gets sort of then it's out of these hands.

12:58Well, as I stated in the through the chair, as I stated at the beginning of my presentation at home as a rehearse.

13:06I think that's actually an interesting report designations and the protections that are afforded by designations under part full of the act are in effect.

13:19Well, it's eventually.

13:21If it's just about the mercy then whatever we do.

13:26We're the city is being asked for its advice on this.

13:30And that that's essentially what his staff and the committee.

13:35I think I'm going to be doing it.

13:37But it should be.

13:42Go ahead.

13:43Through chair to Steven.

13:46One of the things I noticed in the report with regards to the timeline of these buildings.

13:54In relation to the five destination that is in the works.

13:58Or the.

14:00Heritage district.

14:03And the reason that staff are council directed for listing rather than designation to do with.

14:13You know, this is sort of seen as a secondary.

14:16Protection for buildings.

14:19Maybe I can read that.

14:20I'm just trying to understand, you know.

14:23Why council.

14:26Chose of this, but not.

14:28Pursue designation back in 2021.

14:31Through the chair.

14:32I think it's fair to say that staff are directed for listing rather than designation to do with.

14:45You know, this is sort of seen as a secondary.

14:48Protection for buildings.

14:50Maybe I can rephrase that.

14:52I think it's fair to say that staff's recommendation and I believe there is wealth.

14:58Each net that time was if nothing else, these additional heritage attributes of 785 York road need to be identified.

15:08Need to be at least listed on the heritage register.

15:12As non designated problems.

15:14It was understood at the time that those buildings and can they continue to be within the area being studied that was studied for the.

15:24Ontario formatory heritage conservation district.

15:28But again, unfortunately.

15:31To repeat.

15:33Even.

15:34Even in the case of district designation, that's that's not enough. That wouldn't be in effect until provincial ownership stops.

15:43Understood.

15:46But.

15:48These properties haven't identified as.

15:51Contributing to our understanding that portion of the reform.

15:55That's correct. Thank you.

15:57I have one other follow up question.

16:01This is on the subject of.

16:08Salvage and commemorations. That's one of the.

16:11Options that's being presented.

16:15I think we're just we've gone through this with recently with.

16:19What's going on with the conservatory and so I'm hoping.

16:24Staff can maybe provide some clarity as far as.

16:28How the Ontario heritage act works with the intention around.

16:33Salmage.

16:35If that was the direction that.

16:40To move forward.

16:42How do we how do we properly manage like how do how are we identifying and then protecting.

16:48I didn't like parts of that property that are identified as being worthy of salvage.

16:53Is that something that the building has to be designated.

16:57And then.

16:58In the attributes we're listing.

17:00Elements of that building that.

17:02Are to be salvaged or and then it's dealt with as far as like a heritage.

17:07Impact or like.

17:09Sorry, I'm forgetting my words when it comes back to committee.

17:12If they're wanting to change something that that that department.

17:15Thank you.

17:16The heritage alteration permit.

17:19I just want to make sure that we're we have a clear understanding of like.

17:22How that would move forward if that was.

17:25Because it seems to have not been very clear with the conservatory.

17:29What is possible or not possible under the act.

17:32Through the chair is my understanding that.

17:37The.

17:38Infrastructure Ontario is working on.

17:42The measure the mitigation measures that they would take on.

17:47If.

17:48I say if.

17:50The buildings are to be removed demolished.

17:53And I it's my understanding that a minute or a salvage plan would be made.

18:01Would be made public or would be brought to our attention.

18:05If you can, because this is provincially owned land and provincially owned.

18:10Buildings or structures that have municipal cultural heritage value are listed on the register because of their municipal value.

18:20Really, all the city can do is provide friendly advice.

18:26About whatever the infrastructure Ontario's plans are potentially are a form of salvage.

18:34That these aren't designated.

18:36Buildings are not protected buildings and literally as if the.

18:41Even though they're treated.

18:45Sorry, it's going to back up a bit. They are listed on the heritage register, but as non designated properties.

18:51They're being dealt with by the property owner in a way that the property owner sees fit.

18:59In a way that the minister sees fit.

19:02So it's I'm hopeful that out of this salvage program could be.

19:09Made brought to our attention that in some ways can seek to retain materials.

19:18That could be used in future to build something or recreate something.

19:24Or build or build something that commemorates what was there.

19:29And to in a way to provide a physical physical elements that help tell the story.

19:36But the interior.

19:38But unlike properties that are already designated under the act and truly.

19:46Under the under the act and as applicable law, we can't follow or we're not able to control this through the heritage permit process.

19:57So if I understand this correctly.

20:03The idea of salvage and commemoration.

20:06If that was the route that was taken, we essentially be.

20:13Providing common to I owe to say we would appreciate if you.

20:18Salute these materials, but there's there's no real framework for.

20:22Requesting that or governing what materials they in the end of the sign of selling what they choose to sell. It's purely up to them at that point.

20:32That's that's true.

20:36And so for me, could front advice from the city and be something along the lines of.

20:43These buildings should be preserved in light of.

20:47Information we have regarding their construction and their importance to.

20:51Our municipal heritage.

20:54I know when I read the report prior to the last meeting.

20:59There was discussion on remediation.

21:03While still preserving those buildings and certainly would be more costly more complex, but it didn't seem like it was impossible.

21:11And so I guess that would be my question is, could the friendly advice from the city be.

21:17It's our position that those buildings should be preserved until we've had a chance to fully investigate their significance, their heritage attributes and their importance to the heritage landscape there.

21:29Through the chair heritage wealth and provide whatever commentary they see is.

21:36Appropriate.

21:39I think I'll just turn your attention back to the.

21:44Part of the communication at receive from I O that they close their first paragraph by unfortunately the past efforts to remove the contaminants.

21:54While retaining all buildings as a as outlined in the HIA.

21:59That has not been successful.

22:02So I think they're saying that in order to truly clean site, it requires the removal of the buildings.

22:09Not only to remove the soil, but also to create the requirements.

22:13Those in that process.

22:16Are there other questions or discussion points from folks on this?

22:35Yeah, Alex, go ahead.

22:40Thank you, sir. I do have a motion that I've provided. I'm happy to provide comment on the preface that motion, but I'll wait until everybody else is done.

22:53I don't know if I saw anyone else unmute online or raise hands.

22:58So I think you're you're good to speak Alex.

23:05Thank you through the chair.

23:08So I, you know, I read through the report that I have provided and.

23:16I started to come to the same conclusions that they have. I think.

23:21Largely their decision making centers around liability. And I think our role as a committee is here to assess value.

23:28And to advise on whether or not buildings deserve protection or conservation.

23:35It's not that as a community, I think we can't be sensitive to economic restraints or safety concerns. These are all very important.

23:43But there are plenty of people who are.

23:46Hey, to think about those things and our job is really to look at value.

23:53I was disappointed to see in the report that.

23:58Under positives and negatives under the negative.

24:04Table they sort of haven't identified that the loss of these structures would have an impact on the heritage value or the understanding of the site. I think.

24:12That these buildings do contribute to our understanding of the work that went on as far as reformatory the training of skills.

24:22The self sufficiency that was built into the system of that prison.

24:28So I personally feel that we have a mandate to protect these buildings.

24:35I'm also a little concerned because.

24:38Within their own evaluation of the condition of the building, although they say that they're in poor condition, the envelope, at least.

24:47Within their breakdown of that, they do identify that the structure of the foundations.

24:54You know, everything apart from the roof and the windows and doors and certain areas of these buildings tend to actually have to be in fair condition. That's the word they use.

25:03So I'm a little cautious about, you know.

25:07Being on side with the removal of buildings that seem to be perfectly usable.

25:13I think also I also identified that there's no program needs for these buildings, but as the property is getting close to sale. It's not really in their scope. I think to be thinking about what potential uses can be done.

25:26What adaptive reuses can be used for these buildings.

25:32At the end of the day, though, I think to how counsel back in 2021 added these buildings to the registry is listed buildings and that this took place prior to the changes that were introduced by bill 23.

25:47In November of 2022.

25:50And as we know, now the list of building is that it's either moved on to designation or it's removed from consideration.

26:00I feel that it would be helpful to have direction from council on identifying what parts or what aspects of the reformatory that are above and beyond the 12.

26:13So, eventually, as many buildings are recognized buildings, they want to save merit protection. So my motion that I've brought forward to the committee to consider is essentially asking council to weigh in and say whether or not they feel the powerhouse or the chimney merit.

26:38You know, they have enough historical and heritage value to the site to merit sort of going the extra mile to see whether or not it's, you know, we should be saving up.

26:48I think if council decides that they don't feel that these have enough value then the discussion is pretty easy from that on.

27:00So that's one part of that motion. The other part of that motion was taking staff's recommendation recommendation to ask for a more detailed structural analysis.

27:11The feasibility of that. I've added just the word.

27:16Seeing whether it's actually practical. I know there's a lot of talks a lot of the slope and having to remove large areas of soil. If they provide a detailed evaluation that says it's not practical.

27:29And that's another conversation. And I'd also like to see the discussion around pertaining those buildings in full as opposed to in part. I think salvage is a great conversation I have if, you know, every other option has been fully exhausted.

27:48I don't know if we've met that motion yet.

27:55I understand that part four part five protections don't come into place until after the sale. And really that this is up to the minister.

28:04I would think that, you know, we've been at least cities been asked to identify aspects of that property, beyond the provinces identified.

28:15It's within our mandate to get everything and sort of advise them that, you know, we do see merit to some of these properties or we don't.

28:26And then have a discussion from there. If they have to go and get visitors to set up that well, they can do that anyways. So I say we just do what we normally would do, which is look at whether or not these meet the criteria for a part four or five.

28:43All into there.

28:45So are you putting your motion forward then?

28:48Yes, I will. I'll put my motion on the table.

28:52Motions and chair up sorry just to help with that we'll get them up on screen so everybody can see them.

29:00Maybe just as a point of clarity really quickly before things are moved and and and all of that. So essentially if council declines, then the third part of your motion.

29:12Is that the logic of this like it or is that the outcome of council decides not to initiate a part four designation and I don't know in the past even if it maybe you can clarify this if council often has advised staff to do a part four designation.

29:28Or is this something that maybe would make sense in going into our next conversation or later conversation on part part four priorities designations for the next year.

29:40Just I'm just curious maybe on some process clarification for myself. Steven, do you have any insight into that?

29:47Chair, I'd be happy to give whatever insight that I have. My first comment would be that the third item in Alex's proposed motion.

30:02It involves buildings actually that were being studied in this commended heritage impact assessment.

30:09What goes beyond the scope of what this particular HIA was was said to do was to summarize the from the from the provinces from a provincial standpoint and from the you know the the viability of keeping those buildings being the powerhouse chimney service tunnel in the canary storage.

30:33The viability of retaining those buildings while still remediating the area.

30:40So this is my first what I noticed first in this is that this is going further than than simply the subject buildings.

30:50But also I would I would remind the committee that council is already directed staff and there's well for that matter to look into the designation of this and as of these buildings actually as part of the larger here's conservation district.

31:09They are all of the ones that I see in this third part of the motion. They are all identified currently as heritage attributes of the Ontario reformatory here's conservation district.

31:21So you could say you could see this as cities already initiated and is in the plan stage of part five designation that includes these buildings.

31:36Now, the chair you had asked to know if if if it's is it usual to receive from council a direction to designate enter part four. I believe it's happened before but nothing comes to mind off the top of my head.

31:51Normally it's something that is brought from recommendations that are coming from either the committee or the public or the committee or staff toward council kind of any other direction.

32:05Okay, thanks even other. Yeah, go ahead Alex.

32:14If I threw you chair if I could respond to Steven, I think I take your point of the process with regards to what is probably original agenda item, and I would be happy to separate the other buildings that are not particular to that agenda item into a separate thing

32:34later into this meeting.

32:38I only bring the part for forward just because my opinion, maybe wrong part four tends to lend other to or otherwise this this sense of it being more puts a fire point on whether or not these buildings are great heritage value or not.

33:02And if what you're saying is, is, you know, the spirit of that motion is already being met by the work that staff are doing and what council is directed.

33:12Then, in my mind that clears up.

33:16Maybe what the position of this committee could be as far as whether or not demolition is acceptable for these.

33:25These structures on the problem.

33:27Okay, can I make a point.

33:29The committee can say that straightforward to the province that you will pose that was one of these buildings.

33:37Requiring staff to divert our very limited resources to designate something that is futile to designate just doesn't seem strategically.

33:47I wouldn't recommend it strategically. It's already designated or will be under part five.

33:54And part four designations for all those buildings will take time and energy away from other parts of the city that could be done.

34:03Just want to know that for the committee.

34:08I take your point.

34:13Unless I said it else has issue I would be open to withdrawing that motion and putting forward a different motion which is in a essence to say that, you know,

34:32you don't support demolition as the option for I to consider and we would look we would like to see.

34:41The assessment for retaining those properties in full or those structures full while the environmental remediation.

34:51So, unless anybody else on this issue, I'm happy to have that.

34:57And I appreciate that flexibility. I think that was my sticking point was I think that one as well.

35:04And so, I know Craig said that clerks would be on top of me not having to sort of amend motions.

35:11I did make notes, but if you have something on screen that's ready to go, Craig, I'm happy to pass it to you with the motion.

35:19Chair, we don't have anything prepared currently.

35:23So, or have you have something.

35:27Yeah, so I was going to say so I'm assuming the first proposed motion so it heritage if you want to put the original motions back on the screen that Alex had shared I think that's helpful because I think the first one doesn't change.

35:39And then I think the second one to Jack's point about being clear about demolition and Alex's amendment could just simply state that heritage Guelph does not support demolition and recommends that infrastructure Ontario and I think the rest of that can all stay the same Alex is that keep what your

35:54thoughts were if it just if the start of it is that heritage Guelph does not support demolition and recommends does that capture your thoughts that that works for me.

36:06Although other members have.

36:09I would say it could be that that heritage Guelph recommends that infrastructure Ontario preserve these buildings and carry out the necessary detailed structural investigation so just after the word Ontario and the second bullet to say preserve these

36:22buildings and the rest.

36:28Yeah, I don't have to you chair I don't have an issue with the spirit of like we've offered as a change.

36:39So that heritage Guelph recommends that infrastructure Ontario preserve these buildings and carry out Miranda that captures it.

36:48Yes, sorry these buildings want to lift the buildings in particular the powerhouse chimney service tunnel and cannery storage but they are referred to in number one so I think that should be these buildings yeah.

37:04And so you're suggesting the project and to determine the both the practicality and feasibility retaining.

37:10So you're suggesting we didn't need to list the buildings again at the end of the second motion.

37:19I think it's so I think they're all they're referred to a number one and number two at the end so I think it's clear.

37:25Perfect.

37:26Just delete number three.

37:27Do you think that's clear enough.

37:29Yeah, I think that respects the spirit of what I was trying to say.

37:35Excellent.

37:36So Alex, are you moving your motion then.

37:40I will move my motion.

37:42Is there and my screen is very small right now with the other with the other share screen so is there a second or so can you just say your name.

37:50I'll second it.

37:51Miranda perfect and then will go all those in favor.

38:00Lara's hand is up and all those opposed.

38:05Sorry Kelly didn't catch your hand up.

38:09So in favor.

38:12Awesome.

38:13All right, thank you everyone.

38:16Okay, so moving along and a note.

38:21Just keeping track of time at 124 so number 2.2 then is there are golf heritage or heritage golf meeting schedule.

38:31Jack, I'm not sure if you had an actual presentation you want to share with this or just maybe an update.

38:37Yeah, I will note to I've been informed by the staff members.

38:42So present right on 2.4 that they they cannot attend for personal reasons.

38:47So I recommend deferral of that item to the next meeting.

38:52Okay.

38:53In the interest of time, I'm going to be relatively speedy here. I'm not really going to say anything that isn't in the staff report.

39:02So we all know in April of this year, the province has extended the deadline for removal of non designated properties from the municipal register until the end of 2026.

39:12So we want to use these next 24 months as wisely as we can.

39:17So staff.

39:20Jack, are we on, are we on the meeting schedule?

39:25Yeah, I skipped a skip an item again.

39:28Oh, she's quite more detailed.

39:31Okay, okay.

39:32The schedule I have no presentation on the schedule. No, I open the floor to members.

39:39Perfect. I think there's been quite a bit of discussion about Thursdays from 12 to two being a good option for most members and I know Alex had drafted emotion in favor of that which I'm sure Craig can put on the screen as well for us, which is slightly adjusted to say first Thursday.

39:57And so if there, if there's any conversation from folks about moving our meetings to the first Thursday of each month, I know I'm happy to have weekends not as prep for heritage 12 meetings myself so I appreciate the suggestions to adjust things.

40:10Are there any other comments or discussion from anyone on moving that Thursdays.

40:16Fine with me.

40:18Kelly's nodding. Yep. Alex I saw your hand go up right before the screen got shared.

40:23Yeah, no worries.

40:25Through to chair. I included the date but I didn't include a vacation about timing. I mean, if everybody's happy with 12 to two that's fine.

40:35There are other members that wanted to suggest other times.

40:39I'm not sure if you're hearing that song.

40:44So, I'm supportive of 12 to two I know it just in my schedule and with kids and things that evening meetings are a little tough for me and with my teaching schedule as well at night.

40:53I don't know if there's others who had a different time suggested I know for a few folks I heard with work schedules it was ideal at 12 because this is sort of their lunch hour that they're using this for but if there's, we can absolutely have discussion of moving it from 12 to

41:0612 to two.

41:08I think there's interest in that hearing none and seeing no one. Oh yeah David sorry.

41:20It's February and we've got it.

41:22It'll go up yet. The first one will be in February I think I wrote down in my own notes that the first date then would be February six I think is the first Thursday of the month.

41:39I think that's what it's up to as well but it's flexible Kelly I think you've unmuted did you.

41:46I was just going to add that also for me evenings are not impossible but they're they're a bit tough with with my daughter and at home and stuff like that so I'm happy with the 12 to two.

42:01Thank you.

42:07And so I think the motion that Craig had put up.

42:10I was on there very very briefly was a bit shortened but it was thank you that Heritage 12 hold its meetings on the first Thursday of each month from 12 to 2pm.

42:21Does that works if there's someone who'd like to move that motion.

42:26Again I can't see so Kelly I've got you and I can barely see so if someone in the room wanted to second it you're welcome to show it out your name.

42:34Sure we have the Alps hand or second in the room thank you.

42:37Perfect thank you and then all those in favor.

42:42Excellent thanks everyone.

42:45All right so now we're going to pass it to Jack but I'm going to turn my camera off and everything and leave it to Kim to take over this item.

42:53Okay.

42:59All right I'll pick up where I left off.

43:04So we've learned a lot of lessons in the last few years with the designations that we have done.

43:10So since 2023 we've done 23 designations.

43:18A lot of what we're doing and crafting this designation strategy was trying to figure out how we could kind of expedite this process in order to crank out as many designations as possible.

43:31So right now staff bring two reports to the committee so we bring a staff report to council to issue the no need if there's an objection we bring another staff report to council.

43:41And then we bring the bylaw to council so depending on whether there's an objection that's between four and five staff reports per designation.

43:50What we're proposing in this designation strategy is that we're just going to bring the draft that we would bring to council directly through the air committee.

44:00This will remove two reports from this process and condense it into one meeting instead of spread out over two.

44:09I think this is the main thing that's going to allow us to work on more designations in terms of identification.

44:17So we have quite a backlog of properties that have been identified previously by the committee as well as we're also going to always risk as always our first priority.

44:29So we'll be examining you know now that we have found for the downtown we're going to look at the periphery of that boundary and see if there are any properties that are facing development pressure that won't be protected by part five designation.

44:42Other properties that SAP are aware of risk on a case by case basis will prioritize those members are also welcome to recommend properties that haven't previously recommended especially if you're aware of how they may or may not meet some of the criteria that's always very helpful.

44:58We're going to try and slim down the amount of research we do and make our reports a little bit shorter.

45:07We'll only do what is necessary for proving that a property meets the designation criteria.

45:13And for here to judge the views we're going to follow the formula and wind in the staff report.

45:19Now that said for properties with supportive owners the list of heritage attributes would be the result of a discussion that that will always be noted on the staff report that we discussed the heritage attributes with the owner.

45:34Because we're anticipating an increase in volume of the reports being brought to the committee we're going to begin listing these on what is called the consent agenda.

45:43So if you've attended a council meeting you're likely familiar with the consent agenda. It's items that may not bear discussion but still require review.

45:52So at the beginning of the meeting the committee will approve all the reports in one vote.

45:59Now that said if a member wants to pull any single report from the consent agenda for discussion, every member has the right to do that.

46:10So I'm really cautious around the consent agenda being seen as like the committee not having time to discuss something if you think it merits discussion and time in a meeting.

46:23You can always pull it from the agenda.

46:26So I've suggested edits for the report. They can submit them to staff prior to publication of the revised agenda and then these edits will be included in a memo that will be attached to the revised agenda.

46:40And this way the entire committee can review what any member is proposing to be changed.

46:49I want to emphasize that even with these revisions 50 designations is going to be a slog both for staff and for the committee because you're going to have to read them all.

47:00So I think like approaching this collaboratively and recognizing that you know I've often likened losing our municipal registered to being on a sinking ship.

47:10We're at the stage now where we're just grabbing people throwing off as fast as possible. And so that's that's the approach we're taking with these designations. I'm going to be focused, you know, wholly on quantity.

47:23Obviously, we will produce quality reports as well.

47:28We're going to try and avoid getting down the rabbit hole at Steve and Bob and I and to fall down the certain properties. You know, as soon as we hit the basic criteria for designation will stop the research and bring it to the committee.

47:4250 designations will be about as many as we have designated in the previous 25 years. So it's a lofty goal, but I'm pretty confident that with these revisions we can make it happen.

47:55But I'm happy if members have any questions or any feedback they'd like to offer.

48:01I'm happy to hear it.

48:03To me, this makes sense.

48:06I like the idea that we have material to read in advance. I think it's going to speed our meetings up dramatically.

48:12And who knows that things are going really quickly. We might exceed our whole affinity.

48:16That would make me very happy.

48:19But I think for most of us in our daily lives, reading materials in advance is an expectation and there are lots of times when you make a presentation and no one has any questions and we say that's a beautiful presentation.

48:30How interesting to know the history, but just in the interest of time, I think it makes sense.

48:38Alex.

48:40Thank you. Through the chair to Jack. Yeah, I think consent agendas make sense. I do have a couple questions just on how everything works.

48:50So just to recap, edits for here to judge needs have to come before revised agendas would be going to committee.

48:57Ideally, I mean, you can always say anything you want to be leaving, but I think it'll be more transparent for the rest of the community if they can see a list of edits or suggestions before that.

49:09No, I wanted to know if pulling an item off the consent agenda. Is that something that has to happen in writing before the meeting or can it happen at the start of the meeting or like what's

49:20It's my understanding it happens when the consent agenda is considered.

49:24Yeah, so just to help them through you by share girl.

49:29When we get to a consent agenda at any meeting chair or vice chair of others running the meeting of time will ask the members are there any items on the consent agenda that need to be discussed and there's different ways to do that go through it by list or just put the whole question out to the

49:44group and you know, say one item 2.1 and 2.2 off and and we can do it right at that time. Those items will then be moved down the agenda to a discussion section within the agenda and will continue to go through the agenda when we get those we will discuss that.

49:59Okay.

50:01To follow up on that.

50:03How do you have to delegate some act consent like somebody wants to delegate to an item that's on the consent agenda. Does that immediately bump it off? Correct. So there's there's multiple ways in which an item is removed from consent agenda.

50:16The committee has power over that at the agenda.

50:19Discussion time, but if a delegate signs up it automatically is removed from consent to hear the delegate.

50:26Okay.

50:30And finally,

50:33and just to clarify so we're, you know, if a member says I want to pull this item off the consent agenda, then that goes to a voter is it automatically?

50:43No, it's just automatically pulled. And then best practices the chair would recognize the member who pulled the item as first to speak when we get to that item on the agenda. Okay.

50:53Great.

50:56We did last year, I think was we did a list of what can we pick.

51:04If I remember the number one of some priorities are the goals left that are going on to develop this stuff.

51:11Yeah, so I think we did a bit. You had a top 10 and then there were up to 22 afterwards. So all of those that we haven't gone to this year, we'll be looking at those in 2025.

51:24And that's kind of where we're starting is going through 2024 and 2023 priorities to see what the committee has identified and what we haven't designated yet.

51:35And for free to send in and he's regretting. Yeah, we encourage it, especially often meeting the historical criteria is what takes the most amount of time to research. So if committee members are aware of any properties with, you know, historic value specifically.

51:54We really encourage you to send us that along with the information.

51:59Okay.

52:02Sorry.

52:04I was just gonna ask, are we will we have an update and spreadsheet at some point or can we just take a quick run through maybe at our next meeting to see so we're we're hoping to have flexibility.

52:14Okay, this year. Like I don't want to set myself to any, any exact list.

52:20So I'll admit that when we publish a list of 50 last year, some folks, it caused some panic and crack the public amongst the property owners. So I'm reluctant to publish another list of properties, especially if we're not ultimately going to get to all of them.

52:34Okay, this year, but but the vast majority of properties we will be bringing have been identified by the committee before. So and I included hyperlinks to their previous lists.

52:45Okay, good.

52:49Alex.

52:50Through you, chair to Jack.

52:52I just wanted to circle back on heritage attributes. I just, I had a comment and clarification or question.

53:00I'll start with the comment. The comment was in the sort of list.

53:07That has been identified.

53:09It would, I think it would be great to have still a catch all category for those things that aren't because all those are really physical and those are looking at it. Here's judge means that you're going to have a catch all category for things that aren't necessarily physical or just to leave some flexibility in the future.

53:32I don't know if this the attention behind the attribute category list was sort of a set in stone.

53:40Yeah, it's kind of, it's kind of, I think staff will kind of use this to craft their attribute list, but and I put significant design features as kind of a bit of a catch all if there's, you know, like if there's a really significant

53:56shutters or something, you know, like that might not fall.

54:01And then you'll be specifically, but we'll list whatever we think it was a property here to value, but I wanted to get you to kind of have a blueprint or what to expect when we bring heritage attributes.

54:12Okay, great. And the question was, so with the conversations that happened just so

54:21that the committee members understand this a little bit better so you during the process you talk to the property hours and you discuss heritage attributes.

54:33Could you maybe talk to how that conversation takes place and around it because you know not that property hours can't intuitively understand what things about a property might be value.

54:48Obviously staff have a great wealth of knowledge with understanding how to identify those attributes and committee members also have experience with identifying attributes.

54:58I just want to understand like how that conversation goes with property owners to say hey we're we're looking at heritage attributes, you know what our heritage attributes.

55:08What does that mean for your property.

55:11Yeah, that's good.

55:13Oftentimes property owners are relieved to understand that the designation by law will only apply to certain list of things like many people think it's going to apply to the wallpaper in their second story bedroom, you know.

55:26So I think they appreciate having clarity and so what we usually do is we'll bring a list of recommended attributes to the property owner and we'll say, you know, some are non negotiable like building form, you know, Roush Shave when original window

55:41and door openings, but then we'll say there is some flexibility there when it comes to, you know, original windows, doors, interior features sometimes property owners are keen to list things that we haven't even recommended.

55:54So it's not always a shrinking of heritage attribute lists.

55:57Oftentimes it expands when we discuss it with the property owner.

56:01To follow up as a matter of sort of transparency is is it possible when you know staff bring back after having these conversations, you know, to identify if there were notable attributes that became sticking points.

56:17Is that possible so that, you know, we're aware of.

56:21Yeah, I know there's friction because I.

56:23Yeah, yeah, ultimately we don't want friction in the process. Yeah, but instead of, you know, if staff and the property owner have had a conversation and have sort of said, okay, well, this, you know, would be left off.

56:37Yeah.

56:38Instead of having many members then ask to put it back on and that causing friction.

56:44Yeah, I think what the committee should know is that often oftentimes when heritage attributes are negotiated, it is in exchange for owner support.

56:54And like, again, from a strategic perspective, every penalty appeal costs us like five to 10 other desert nations.

57:04So if I have to leave like a couple windows and doors off the heritage attribute list in order to avoid an appeal.

57:10I will, I'll do that. And I can't think of a reason why I couldn't put an explanation of the discussion outside with property others in into the staff reports so that the committee is aware where the negotiation happened.

57:23What was decided.

57:26Yeah, I'm happy to do that.

57:28I appreciate that because I think back to 99 ball, because I was raising some things in the meeting and I know staff worked like diligently with the property owners to arrive at that only for little meeting to start throwing rocks at the whole process.

57:44So I know personally it would help to understand what the nature of the conversation. Yeah, that has taken place. Yeah, absolutely.

57:53So we're not questioning, you know, yeah, yeah, that's fair. Our point template that we will be going forward has a consultation and engage with section that should ideally have a good life.

58:07I'm going to consult my notes with other committee members have anything else to say.

58:12Okay.

58:14Um, is it possible.

58:16Alex, I believe that you had some proposed motions for this item.

58:22Yes, I did. Yeah. Do you still have what do you select to bring those to the table or.

58:29Or are you not going to bring those up.

58:31No, I do plan to bring them forward. Okay, no, we have sensitive time. I do just have one last clarifying question.

58:38Yeah. So I wanted to talk to the public outreach because that was identified.

58:43There's a letter that's going to go out or is proposed to go out.

58:49Just to clarify for the committee or are we going to be seeing a draft of that letter before it goes out? Yeah.

58:56Yeah. My intention is to bring it to the next next meeting because we're hoping to send it out for Heritage Week and that's the third week of February.

59:05Great. And I.

59:09You know, before this meeting, we've had conversations about things that are just not designated.

59:17I just like to know where committee members can find the most up to date. Is that the register online as far as where most up to date designated.

59:27Yes. Yeah. The online register on our website is the most up to date published version, but I've Steven and Craig.

59:37I haven't done that. There is. I have been working on an updated version of that battle. It's a cleaner and it includes hyperwinks to the designation reports.

59:47So it's a little more user friendly than the one that is currently existing that that is forthcoming. Okay.

59:54Yeah. If there's no other committee members, I'm happy to practice the motion.

1:00:00Does anyone else have any questions before Alex brings those motions?

1:00:07Nope. I'm not seeing any hands. So Alex, you're more than welcome to bring those forward. Is it possible for the clerks to put them on the screen again just so we can read along for people online?

1:00:17Yeah. And just for clarification, sorry to clarify, Alex, did you also want to include the staff recommendation of supporting the designation strategy within your motion and then include what you proposed as well?

1:00:30Or we could do that. I'm curious to hear my other committee members thoughts on my motion because it is quite focused.

1:00:41And so I'm happy. I understand the efficiency of doing that, but can I make a recommendation that if the committee does support the staff recommendation of supporting the strategy, maybe we can move in second that one and move on with that one.

1:00:56And then we can get into, you can raise your emotion after that is what you wish. It's up to you.

1:01:02I'm happy to do that way.

1:01:05But we'll get the staff recommendation up on the screen right now.

1:01:09So we can move go move forward with moving this motion first and then we'll move on to Alex's is my understanding.

1:01:21Right.

1:01:22Okay.

1:01:23So the recommended motion that heritage wealth supports the 2025 part four designation strategy.

1:01:31I have someone to move that I see Miranda's hand.

1:01:34Seconder Kelly, all in favor.

1:01:37Thanks Lara.

1:01:39Okay, so all in favor.

1:01:43Okay.

1:01:44So we'll get something up on the screen and let us know this is what we want to put up here because I know you have multiple parts and you know, table and then.

1:02:16Oh yeah, I think we're just the warning on the top right now.

1:02:20Right.

1:02:21I mean, I included that because that that table came out of discussions around how best community members can present to staff.

1:02:30Designations as far as identifying criteria.

1:02:33So that you know, it's not just saying here look at these properties. It's here look at these properties. We think that they may even these criteria.

1:02:43I'm not proposing because of our timing to read it everyone out but I don't know if if the members want to see that.

1:02:50I think if you're proposing to move a motion as the mover, we just need to know what content you want to move. Is it just the proposed motion or does it.

1:03:00That's where I'm looking for clarity here.

1:03:02Okay.

1:03:03Then I will say the proposed motion and the table.

1:03:06Just give us one moment then please.

1:03:13Okay, I'm happy to start my.

1:03:15Yep.

1:03:17Yeah, Alex, you can go.

1:03:20Thank you through you chair.

1:03:23So I took the holidays to sort of think back on what's happened this past year with regards to the mercy and conservatory.

1:03:32And to think about the upcoming designation strategy and as Jack has mentioned, you know, we have to get as much as we can done in as little as time as we have.

1:03:44That being said, you know, there are several properties that are listed on the register that the university owns that in my opinion.

1:03:56And I think that we need a high criteria in heritage value. And it was unfortunate to see how the university decided to react to the designation of the conservatory.

1:04:10I think in the past, they've been understood to be good about looking after their buildings and I don't disagree with that.

1:04:18But I think when it comes down to moments like the conservatory with proposed evolution, they, you know, they also have shown that they are pretty clear pursuing the path that they want to pursue.

1:04:31So this isn't meant to be weaponizing heritage. I know that gets thrown around.

1:04:37This is putting it forward to suggest that we should try to get some of these buildings looked at and possibly designated before they all fall off the register January 1st of 2027.

1:04:52I've, I mean, I think a lot of the buildings that are on that that are listed on the register probably meet the criteria to be designated.

1:05:02I'm proposing just five properties at this stage.

1:05:07Also, because I'd like to see council provide some some clarity to as far as how they want to approach university because of what happened with the conservatory.

1:05:21I think more than any of the other properties that we will look at as a committee, these have maybe the biggest impact across multiple considerations.

1:05:38And I wouldn't want to waste staff time on properties that the university is going to dig their heels heels into seeing a designation for and that council ultimately doesn't want to pursue.

1:05:52So the reason I've presented these five properties is also to see clarity from council as to whether they are open to looking at designating properties that the university owns.

1:06:06And if they do, then great.

1:06:08If not, well, we've got 1700 other properties and we'll have to look at so this is about understanding, you know, yes, we're looking at risk assessment, but also, you know, we're here to assess value in these buildings have a high degree.

1:06:21of heritage value.

1:06:24So I don't know if it's helpful to identify, allow what those properties are.

1:06:30I won't bring through the criterion.

1:06:34It sounds like those will be provided because they're now part of the motion to other committee members if they want to review them and my suggested criteria for each property.

1:06:44A lot of that information was pulled actually from university sources.

1:06:50And, you know, but I've stopped also probably should review to see if they accurately reflect the criteria that those information have been personally under so

1:07:05I'll leave it at that.

1:07:09Thank you, Alex.

1:07:12I'm wondering if we don't include the table in your proposed motion.

1:07:19Maybe we find time in a meeting where we can all as a committee again have a little workshop to go through the properties.

1:07:30Unless we're all on board with those added properties.

1:07:36I know it's a fluid list so we'll be able to maybe Jack and speak to if we're able to still add and remove from this list.

1:07:46We can also make this an independent.

1:07:49Mid item on an upcoming.

1:07:52That's true.

1:07:54True chair to you.

1:08:04I guess, putting aside this subject of the properties but as far as process for, you know, if there are committee members reading forward suggested properties.

1:08:19Is this the way that I've ever played this information is that consistent with what you are looking for as far as providing a starting point. Yeah, that that table goes above the beyond with respect.

1:08:32And will it be necessary to schedule these alternative item agenda items to discuss if members are reading forward.

1:08:45I just meant if the committee would prefer to discuss the university properties in a separate meeting with dedicated time and they so that they can basically review the table that you've provided.

1:08:58Right ahead of time.

1:09:00Because right now we have to put it up on the screen go through one by one.

1:09:04I appreciate that I just sorry.

1:09:08The sake of learning from my mistakes.

1:09:11You know, I only did get this out this this morning so I apologize to the rest of committee members for not having enough time if I had provided this before the revised agenda.

1:09:21When I would have gone out with the revised agenda.

1:09:24Yeah, we could have added as correspondence.

1:09:27Okay, thank you.

1:09:31Okay.

1:09:32David, I see your hands up.

1:09:34I think it's like with Alex is proposing. I think it could be part of a broader approach to in terms of how to deal getting the feedback for council on the general issue of dealing with university and possibly other people.

1:09:49We certainly have a lot to learn from from the last time.

1:09:55That is something I indicated to Alex is that with properties that are owned by the university if I want to counsel or counsel direction in order to initiate evaluations of those properties because they are wouldn't be sensitive as we have learned.

1:10:12I'm just going to talk about the county before the industry we can make it a broader.

1:10:25Through chair.

1:10:28Would it be beneficial to this committee?

1:10:33I don't know how comfortable everybody is.

1:10:36I think it would be awkward maybe having a workshop in which we go through the criteria that are in the Ontario Heritage Adaptive people that helps us all get on the same page with regards to understanding how to identify heritage attributes.

1:10:55I think that's like the sort of nine criteria. Okay.

1:10:59Always happy to do that. I will note that we'll likely be doing orientation in April.

1:11:06Yeah, so maybe I can touch on this with the ACOC framework for all the committees of council.

1:11:12I think it would be an opportunity for procedural bylaw and meeting structure orientation as well as specific orientation for each committee in their subject matter.

1:11:23So we have it upcoming and I think it would be more advantageous and a better use of everyone's time if we didn't do it twice, for example.

1:11:33I think we will come this year. We're thinking sometime before June, July at this point we're still looking for council direction on finalizing that project will be end of March.

1:11:42So I was a stay tuned and we can find the appropriate time to do that, which would include everything that you're talking about.

1:11:49I'm happy to try and find any like educational resources that might discuss the heritage values.

1:12:02Maybe at that workshop meeting we can discuss the table Alex with the properties that you've you've highlighted for this meeting.

1:12:12And that maybe that will give us all time to go through the properties that you've brought to the table today. Does that make sense.

1:12:18So to you chair, you're suggesting the April meeting for discussing this table.

1:12:25Well maybe just deferring to the next meeting at least.

1:12:28If that works for everyone or unless everyone is ready to move forward and passing emotion with that table.

1:12:39Yes, Alex.

1:12:41I just I am open to because of how I've presented this to committee members I am open to deferring this to the next meeting.

1:12:49Okay, I would like to see it move forward sooner rather than later so that you know so that we can get on council agenda but you know.

1:12:57Can I make a recommendation by sharing the scare from the Corks office.

1:13:03At this point, we don't have a seconder. So if it's the desire to get this on an upcoming agenda, I would recommend that just Alex work with staff to discuss some of those details and figure out an appropriate timeline.

1:13:15If that works, unless you want to formalize it in emotion, it's up to you but I think staff correct me Jack if I'm wrong but are hearing what you want to do and could quite easily work with you and find time on an upcoming agenda to make it work.

1:13:26Yeah, through you chair.

1:13:28There's yet that I mean that in principle I'm fine with. I would say that you know if committee members wanted to just, you know, I'm putting this now that I wouldn't want to take that opportunity away from them but if nobody has a strong opinion about doing that.

1:13:44This meeting that I would defer to clerks have suggested.

1:13:50Do any committee members have a strong opinion about voting for this for this meeting, or would you like time to go over the properties suggested for next time. Kelly.

1:14:05Thanks through through the chair I think it makes sense to wait I it all. I know today was just weird and everything seems a bit rushed I love time to look through it.

1:14:21And have and not feel so rushed, I guess, at this point is what I would say so I, my preference would be to just maybe try and get it on to the next meeting.

1:14:31Okay.

1:14:33Thank you Kelly.

1:14:35Do any other members have Miranda's at your hand. Yeah.

1:14:39Good.

1:14:42The only other thing I was thinking is that we're going to talk about this in the next meeting which I think is great.

1:14:48Is that if we, if members have anything else that they really want to bring forward any other properties that might be an opportunity to have that conversation then to.

1:14:55Yeah, that's a great idea.

1:14:58So maybe we can form an item around bringing properties forward and suggestions for 2025. Okay.

1:15:08So, with that being said, I'm looking at the time we are past two o'clock.

1:15:16So do I need to put a motion forward right now to be able to extend the meeting for 10 minutes so we can vote on the items and close the meeting.

1:15:27Maybe to support.

1:15:29Vice chair.

1:15:30We have a motion to defer because I think that was staff's recommendation to defer the next item.

1:15:37So we can vote on that really quickly and unless there's anything else we can vote on adjournment really quickly and finalize the meeting if that works.

1:15:43Okay. And are you able to put up the motion so I'm able to.

1:15:48We'll get that up on screen.

1:15:50Okay, thank you.

1:15:56So we just have a motion to defer this item to an upcoming heritage golf meeting. We would just need a mover and seconder to do so.

1:16:06A couple hand moving. I think that's David first and Miranda second.

1:16:10If you want to go with that.

1:16:14Okay. And then all in favor.

1:16:20That's moved.

1:16:21And I'll let Sarah wrap up the meeting. I see that she's back.

1:16:25I have just the now since I have a really quick announcement, I'll run through it really, really fast, which maybe wasn't the goal, but it's okay.

1:16:31So just sort of building off of I think a lot of the conversation today, I just want to take a really quick moment and reflect on how much has got done the last two years and myself being the first time on this committee two years ago and chair and I know Kim and I've talked about this in the same sort of position.

1:16:43I think it's impressive and I'm really excited to continue working with everyone and there's been some changes and some folks that come in halfway through and I'm thinking of Kelly and Alex in particular and the learning pains and growth that comes with that it's been incredible for us and so I just want to highlight really quickly.

1:16:58The R study was approved by council in March of 23 we initiated the downtown.

1:17:02The downtown HCD, which was approved the study was approved by council and September 24.

1:17:08The ward West, HCD has been initiated. There were nine designations in 2023 and 14 and 2024, which is huge. And that's more designations than in the past 15 years. I know some of that is pressure, probably a lot of that is pressure but it also I think speaks to staff's commitment to this and support of the committee which I think is just incredible to see all of these things come together.

1:17:29And the St. George's Stone pillars were returned to St. George's Church from the Edinburgh Road from Edinburgh Road. The Kid Barn was stabilized which I know was a big deal but there's lots of other stuff happening with that one.

1:17:40The property standards bylaw was updated to address demolition by neglect and so it's a lot I think has happened and I know there's a lot more work to do and I know we're all very committed to that.

1:17:50But just really congratulations to everyone for all that hard work and then also I know isn't it the last meeting and that was Councillor Downer's last meeting and obviously she's not here with us today.

1:18:00But I just wanted to note also I think all of our appreciation of her insights, at least for myself over the past two years. I know her knowledge of Guelph is just incredible and impressive and she was always willing to share her interest in heritage and I think we all very much benefited from that.

1:18:14Any other announcements versus my very quick sort of thank you, Shpil from Jack or Steven.

1:18:23Sure, I have one announcement to make. I'm happy to say that in February about the time of Heritage Week, which would be as Jack said, I think it's the third week in February.

1:18:35Staff will be bringing and presenting 17 heritage designation plaques.

1:18:42Thank you.

1:18:43This is this is exciting with all the Heritage Committee's assistance and and as I've always maintained, Heritage Conservation is a great team sport.

1:18:54So we're going to go team.

1:18:57Yeah, that's awesome.

1:18:59Jack any announcements.

1:19:02Just a reminder that we'll have a workshop in a special meeting for the or reformatory draft planning guidelines on January 27th.

1:19:11And we're likely to have another special meeting in February for the downtown and word HCD as well. So just wanted to keep that on your radar.

1:19:20Excellent.

1:19:2227.

1:19:23Same time this usual 1212.

1:19:29All right, I think that's everything. So do I have someone to move a dope. Sorry, Jack's got his hand up.

1:19:36It's Bob's last week here. I wanted to say it's been a pleasure working with you all.

1:19:42And really enjoying my last year has been a great experience and well, this won't be goodbye.

1:19:48Good luck with the year.

1:19:50Yeah, thanks for all your contributions for sure. Absolutely.

1:19:56I wasn't going to let it go.

1:19:59All right, and I think with that only a few minutes past the time, I'll look for someone to move adjournment for today.

1:20:06Second, I see Kim and then Kelly and all in favor.

1:20:10Have a wonderful month or so everyone will see you Thursday, February 6 at 12pm.

1:20:16Bye.