Part 1: Master Plan, Permits, and Preservation Priorities – 03/04/2026
- PECConnect
- Mar 4
- 5 min read
The County’s Built and Cultural Heritage Advisory Committee met virtually on March 4, 2026 to review several issues related to heritage preservation across the county. The committee, chaired by Councillor John Hirsch, discussed updates to the Cultural Heritage Master Plan, considered heritage permits for municipal buildings, and reviewed ongoing heritage projects and working group initiatives.
The meeting was livestreamed in accordance with the County’s procedural bylaw, allowing residents to follow along as committee members examined how the County manages heritage buildings, cultural landscapes, and historic sites.
While several routine agenda items were approved early in the meeting, most of the discussion focused on planning work connected to heritage policy and ongoing projects affecting historic properties in Picton and across the County.
View the entire PEC Council meeting, or continue to speaker comments and councillor votes.
Questions About Heritage Planning
The meeting began with a deputation from local resident Gord Gibbins, who spoke about issues surrounding the Cultural Heritage Master Plan (CHMP) and the County’s approach to heritage designations. Gibbons explained that he had consulted with heritage planners from other municipalities to better understand how communities are responding to Bill 23 and upcoming changes affecting listed heritage properties. He shared several observations with the committee, including clarification that a property does not need to be on the County’s heritage list in order to be designated.
He also spoke about insurance concerns often raised by property owners of historic buildings. Based on discussions with other municipalities, Gibbons said insurers are available for heritage properties, particularly through partnerships such as the National Trust of Canada’s insurance brokerage program.
Beyond those practical issues, Gibbons raised broader concerns about how heritage work is organized in the County. He suggested the committee structure may need review and argued that heritage work may require stronger capacity and clearer responsibilities going forward.
Committee members allowed him additional time to present his comments and later thanked him for the research he had undertaken.
Cultural Heritage Master Plan Moves Toward Final Stages
A significant portion of the meeting focused on the Cultural Heritage Master Plan, a long-term policy document that will guide how the County protects and interprets historic sites.
Scott Pordham, representing the planning department, explained that staff recently met with the consultant team responsible for drafting the plan. The consultants have been asked to address comments received since the most recent version of the report was posted online in December.
Council has instructed staff to prepare two things over the coming months: revisions to the master plan based on public and committee feedback and work plan outlining how the plan’s recommendations will be carried out
Staff are expected to return with that work plan in roughly six months. During the discussion, committee members debated what role the advisory committee should play in shaping that work plan. Some members suggested the committee could provide valuable input on priorities, given its members’ experience with heritage designations and local historic sites.
After discussion, the committee agreed to form a small task team to work directly with planning staff on developing the work plan. Edwin Rowse and Janice Gibbins were appointed to meet with staff and offer assistance as the work plan is prepared.
Members emphasized that collaboration between staff and the committee could help identify priorities and speed up implementation once the plan is finalized.
Heritage Permit Process for Municipal Buildings
Another topic discussed was the heritage permit process for municipally owned buildings. Staff explained that there can be complications when heritage approval processes intersect with the County’s procurement rules. In some cases, contracts for work on heritage buildings are awarded before the Heritage Committee has had the opportunity to review the details.
Staff proposed introducing a pre-consultation step before projects move into procurement. This would allow heritage experts to review proposed work early in the process and identify potential concerns before contracts are finalized.
Committee members supported the idea, noting that it could prevent costly changes later if a project is already under contract.
Crystal Palace Roof Replacement
The committee also discussed the upcoming roof replacement project for the Crystal Palace building in Picton. Staff explained that council had already directed that the existing cedar shake roof be replaced with a VicWest metal roofing product. The heritage committee’s discussion focused on ensuring that the product choice aligns with heritage expectations before the project proceeds through procurement.
The committee ultimately endorsed the recommendation to use the VicWest roofing material, giving staff confidence to proceed with the project. Members also directed the Heritage Permit Task Team to prepare a list of heritage considerations that should be reviewed during future pre-consultations for municipal heritage projects.
Macaulay Church Roof Project Moves Forward
The committee also reviewed Heritage Permit Application HP-02-26 for repairs to the roof structure of Macaulay Church at 23 Church Street in Picton.
Staff explained that the project involved addressing structural concerns discovered during earlier work on the building. An engineering assessment had identified a twisted roof beam that required stabilization before roofing work could proceed.
After a lengthy design and engineering process, a plan was developed to stabilize the structure and install a new roof. The project has already been tendered, and staff indicated that construction could begin soon.
The committee recommended that County Council approve the heritage permit, allowing the work to move ahead.
Updates From Heritage Working Groups
Toward the end of the meeting, the committee received updates from several working groups involved in heritage initiatives across the County. The Cemetery Task Team is considering future condition assessments of local cemeteries, while the Heritage Permit Task Team continues to monitor development proposals affecting heritage properties.
The Remembrance and Commemoration of Prince Edward County Veterans Task Team is beginning to gather research and historical material, and the Heritage Designation Working Group is scheduled to meet again on March 11 to continue identifying potential heritage designations.
Committee members also discussed ongoing communication with Quinte Conservation regarding the possible heritage designation of Scott’s Mill, a historic site that has been under review.
The committee’s next scheduled meeting is expected to take place in early April, although members indicated the date may shift slightly to accommodate availability.
In the meantime, work will continue on several fronts, particularly the Cultural Heritage Master Plan and the committee’s efforts to prioritize heritage projects across the County.
Key Takeaways
The Cultural Heritage Master Plan is entering its final stages.Staff are working with consultants to incorporate feedback and develop a work plan that will guide heritage preservation efforts over the coming years.
Heritage projects at key sites are moving forward.Roof repairs at both the Crystal Palace and Macaulay Church are progressing through the heritage permit and procurement processes.
The committee is working on improving heritage procedures.New pre-consultation steps and closer collaboration with planning staff are expected to help streamline future heritage projects and avoid delays.
Together, these efforts reflect the County’s ongoing work to balance development, maintenance, and the protection of the County’s historic places.
Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 2:19:52. Due to the length of the meeting, our team was not able to independently review the full recording in its entirety. As a result, we relied on software-generated transcription, automated summarization, and automated recognition of speakers and participants, which may not be entirely accurate. All transcriptions, summaries, and related content are prepared by our team in good faith and on a reasonable best-efforts basis. The content is provided for general informational purposes only and is intended to support public understanding of the topics discussed. While reasonable efforts have been made to present the information accurately, automated processes may result in errors, omissions, or unintended misinterpretations. This article does not constitute an official, certified, or verbatim record of the meeting, and it should not be relied upon as such. Readers are encouraged to consult original source materials, official minutes, or recordings where available for confirmation or clarification. Questions, requests for clarification, or suggested corrections may be submitted to hello@pecconnect.ca for review and consideration.
Comments