Part 2: Heritage Enforcement Debate, Museum Governance Discussions, and Strong Support for Awards Revival — 06/03/2026

This article of June 3, 2026 Built and Cultural Heritage Advisory Committee meeting revealed where committee members, staff, and public speakers stood on several important heritage issues.

Many of the discussions were not formal yes-or-no votes. Instead, they involved committee members weighing concerns, asking questions, and helping shape recommendations before decisions move forward.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

View the entire PEC Council Meeting; or view our recap>

Property Standards Bylaw: Broad Support with Requests for Refinement

The strongest discussion centered on the proposed Property Maintenance and Standards Bylaw.

Liz Driver strongly supported creating an enforcement tool for heritage properties but argued that the draft needed stronger language connecting bylaw enforcement officers to the Ontario Heritage Act and the heritage permit process. Driver repeatedly stressed that heritage-specific decisions should not happen without heritage oversight and committee involvement.

Janice Gibbins agreed that the draft did not yet fully account for the unique circumstances of designated heritage properties. She expressed concern that officers enforcing the bylaw would need specialized heritage knowledge when dealing with protected buildings.

Edwin Rowse focused on implementation. He questioned how bylaw officers would know when to involve heritage staff and whether procedural guidance would be developed to ensure heritage concerns are properly handled. Rowse also raised concerns about situations where damaging work could be underway on a heritage building and immediate intervention might be needed.

County Solicitor Sarah Viau reassured the committee that the purpose of the bylaw is not to bypass heritage review but to strengthen it. She explained that officers would not dictate restoration methods themselves. Instead, they would require property owners to obtain the appropriate heritage permits before continuing work.

By the end of the discussion, committee members appeared generally supportive of the concept, with the understanding that revisions and additional consultation would occur before the bylaw reaches Council.

Museum Strategic Plan

The County Museums Strategic Plan generated the most detailed debate of the meeting.

Liz Driver and Gord Gibbins both questioned parts of the governance section. Their concern was that the document could be interpreted as suggesting BCHAC already performs a broader museum oversight role than it currently does.

Driver emphasized that museum governance discussions are still ongoing and argued that the strategic plan should accurately reflect the committee's present role. Gibbins echoed similar concerns and questioned whether the committee possesses the expertise required to fulfill some of the responsibilities described in the plan.

Museum Supervisor Chris Palmer defended the document, explaining that it was designed specifically to meet provincial grant requirements while serving as the first phase of a larger planning process. Palmer noted that BCHAC is currently the museums' designated advisory committee and that staff routinely seek expertise from committee members when needed.

Several committee members attempted to find middle ground.

Bob Waldon suggested focusing on practical wording changes rather than creating barriers to the plan's approval. Waldon repeatedly emphasized that everyone involved appeared to share the same goal of supporting the museums.

Valrie Porter stressed that future committee structures remain unknown and should not prevent current planning work from moving forward.

Ultimately, the committee voted to endorse the 2026-2027 County Museums Strategic Plan while also supporting committee participation in the development of a larger future strategy.

Heritage Awards Receive Strong Backing

One area where there was very little disagreement was the Heritage Awards Program.

Liz Driver argued that the County has gone too long without recognizing important heritage contributions. She urged the committee to restart the awards program as soon as possible.

Gord Gibbins supported that position, noting that heritage awards had not been presented since 2020. He pointed to recent examples of individuals who made major contributions to heritage preservation and deserved recognition.

Valerie MacDonald supported reviving the awards and suggested the program could also help engage younger generations in heritage conservation.

Edwin Rowse agreed that recognition should return and encouraged the committee to find a practical path forward rather than delaying the issue further.

The committee ultimately voted to reactivate the program and seek staff assistance with communications and nominations.

Heritage Permits Approved Without Opposition

The four municipal heritage permit applications involving Shire Hall, Picton Town Hall, Bloomfield Town Hall, and Ameliasburgh Town Hall received little opposition.

Edwin Rowse, speaking on behalf of the Heritage Permit Task Team, explained that the projects were largely maintenance-related and intended to protect the buildings rather than alter their heritage character.

Bob Waldon summarized the committee's general view, noting that the common theme across all four applications was preservation and protection of important municipal heritage assets.

The committee voted in favour of recommending approval for all four permits.

What This Means for Locals

The proposed property standards bylaw could eventually provide stronger protection against neglect and unauthorized alterations. It also signals that the County is continuing to look for practical ways to preserve heritage buildings before serious damage occurs.

The strategic plan endorsement keeps provincial funding applications moving forward while larger conversations about museum governance continue in the background.

The return of the Heritage Awards Program could provide long-awaited recognition for preservation projects, community leadership, and contributions that help protect Prince Edward County's heritage.

Most importantly, the meeting showed that committee members are already looking beyond day-to-day heritage applications and focusing on larger questions about how the County preserves, celebrates, and manages its historic places in the years ahead.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 2:57:36. 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.