Part 2: Who Spoke Up, Where Tension Emerged, and Why Heritage Timing Now Matters - 11/5/2025

While Part 1 outlined the scope of work before the Built and Cultural Heritage Advisory Committee, the deeper story of this meeting emerged through individual voices, moments of tension, and repeated reminders that time is no longer on the committee’s side.

Photo: PEC Council

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

Picton: Inuksuk Relocation and Community Context

The update on the Inuksuk relocation at the Old Boys Memorial entrance in Picton was delivered by Lisa Sverson, who confirmed the sculpture would be moved before Remembrance Day to the Prince Edward Community Centre, near the Huff Estates Arena. Her explanation focused on alignment and visibility, particularly for younger residents who may not understand the original context of the sculpture.

Bob Waldon supported the move, calling the new location logical and more appropriate. The conversation shifted when Albert Paschkowiak asked what would happen to the now vacant space at the Old Boys entrance. Sverson acknowledged the challenge, explaining that the sculpture’s base is structurally integrated into the site and that care would be taken to restore the garden and prevent deterioration.

What this means locally is that Picton residents will see a more coherent commemorative layout, but the entrance space itself remains in transition. The committee signaled that leaving heritage sites visually unresolved is no longer acceptable.

Veterans Commemoration: Support With Caution

Discussion around the proposed Veterans Remembrance and Commemoration Task Team revealed early differences in approach. Bob Waldon was clear that he supported the goal but raised concerns about terminology, membership size, and quorum practicality. His comments focused on governance mechanics and long term sustainability rather than the concept itself.

Janice and Albert Paschkowiak echoed concerns about workload, stressing that participation must remain voluntary and not overburden the committee. Councillor Kate MacNaughton clarified that the task team would act strictly as a subcommittee, with no delegated authority, reporting back to the advisory committee.

The motion ultimately passed, with Arjon, Ben Thornton, and Valrie Porter volunteering. For residents, this signals that veteran recognition efforts are moving forward, but within tight structural boundaries meant to avoid burnout or duplication.

Indigenous Heritage: Alignment Without Opposition

The update on Indigenous heritage representation prompted no disagreement, but it did shape the committee’s broader thinking. Chris Palmer and Erin Davis outlined the reach of A Path Forward, emphasizing its role as an educational extension rather than a symbolic exhibit. The scale of participation, more than 1,300 students in one school year, underscored its growing impact.

Stacey Sproul, speaking on the Public Art Plan, highlighted principles such as Indigenous self determination, co creation, and trauma informed commemoration. Bob Waldon responded personally, linking the presentation to his own background and inviting future collaboration on heritage signage work.

The lack of debate here was notable. The committee appears aligned that Indigenous representation must be embedded early in policy and process, not retrofitted later.

Morrison Point Road: Precision Matters

The proposed designation of 355B Morrison Point Road generated one of the most detailed discussions of the meeting. Albert Paschkowiak raised the issue that referring to the property solely as a house understated its significance. He argued strongly that the entire farm complex, including outbuildings and dry stone walls, must be clearly defined in the designation.

Heritage consultant Ernie Marketson supported this view, explaining that future permit decisions depend heavily on how clearly heritage attributes are described today. Edwin Rowse pushed further, asking whether ruins on the opposite side of the road should be included, prompting clarification that the designation applies only to the north side complex.

The committee agreed in principle, with Councillor Kate MacNaughton confirming that staff would refine the bylaw language before it reaches Council. For rural landowners, this discussion matters because vague designations create long term confusion and risk unintended loss of heritage features.

Heritage Conservation District Signage

The most pointed exchanges came during discussion of Heritage Conservation District signage for Picton and Wellington. Bob Waldon described months of delay tied to procurement rules, budget uncertainty, and unclear approval pathways. His frustration was evident when he questioned whether the project should continue at all if it could not be prioritized.

Albert Paschkowiak urged the committee not to abandon the work, but stressed the urgency of securing funding before budget deadlines close. He warned that if requests are not included now, the project could stall for another year.

After clarifying the difference between 2025 engagement costs and 2026 installation funding, the committee agreed on a two step approach. They recommended up to $7,000 for facilitation and design work this year, and $10,000 as a placeholder in the 2026 budget for production and installation.

For residents in Picton and Wellington, this decision keeps the signage project alive, but it also makes clear that continued delays could still derail it.

Heritage Permits: A Tale of Two Applications

The contrast between two heritage permit applications illustrated how the committee evaluates change. HP 1425, involving 133 Main Street, was not supported. Edwin Rowse explained that despite extensive back and forth, the proposal had too many unresolved issues. Ben Thornton reacted strongly upon learning that windows had already been purchased, calling it a case of putting the cart before the horse.

By contrast, HP 1625 for 290 Wellington Main Street was praised as an exemplary proposal. Rowse highlighted the removal of an intrusive railing and its replacement with a design that reduced visual and physical impact on the heritage fabric. The committee unanimously supported the application.

The message to property owners is clear. Early consultation and thoughtful design lead to approval. Acting first and asking later does not.

The Clock Is Ticking

Toward the end of the meeting, urgency sharpened around the 2027 provincial deadline that will remove protections from listed properties if they are not designated. Janice and Edwin Rowse warned that once delisted, buildings become vulnerable to demolition with minimal notice.

Sandy Latchford clarified that designation can still occur later, but acknowledged that the loss of interim protection significantly raises risk. Albert Paschkowiak noted that Council meetings continue into September 2026, offering a narrow window for action, provided the committee stays active through summer if needed.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 1:43:042. 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.