Part 2: Committee Confirms Courthouse Feedback and Advances Designation Funding — 11/08/2023

This section looks at the same Built and Cultural Heritage Advisory Committee meeting from a different angle, focusing on who raised each issue, how motions were moved and voted on, and how those decisions link back to real places in the County.

Across the meeting, discussion moved between procedural approvals, heritage planning updates, and site specific items like the Picton Judicial Complex, Base 31, and Picton Main Street. While some items were technical, many of the conversations came back to how residents experience these places in everyday life, from access and parking to how heritage sites are used and understood.

The committee also spent time on working groups, funding requests, and future planning for heritage designation work. These decisions were not just administrative, but set the direction for how more properties could be identified, protected, and documented across the County in the months ahead.

Photo: PEC Council/ YouTube

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

Who spoke about place based heritage topics

Councillor Braney spoke during announcements about architectural heritage tours in Wellington and Consecon, and suggested a future in person committee visit, including Glenwood Cemetery.

During the presentation discussion, committee members spoke about the Picton Judicial Complex and its role in Picton, including comments about how residents use services at that location and why accessibility and parking matter to local users.

How the committee handled feedback tied to Picton and the courthouse complex

Valrie Porter asked how regular residents could provide input, and spoke about community interest in the courthouse and how it is experienced by the public.

Monica suggested using the courthouse locally as a communications example of a well used heritage property, and also referenced local benefits such as the grounds and access around the building.

Councillor Kate MacNaughton summarized key feedback points on screen and asked the committee whether it wanted to submit comments back to the province. The committee agreed and passed the motion, moved by Lori and seconded by Ross.

The committee then passed a motion to receive the presentation, moved by Ben and seconded by Councillor Braney. The chair called the vote and the motion carried.

Votes and outcomes tied to specific locations and files

For Planning File OPA-04-23, Base 31, staff said the heritage permit task team had no comments. The committee passed a motion to receive its discussion, moved by Chris and seconded by Michael.

For heritage permits, staff provided a verbal update that a minor permit for signage on Picton Main Street was approved by staff after task team comments. The committee passed a motion to receive the verbal update, moved by Ross and seconded by Michael. Working group updates tied to future council action and community wide impacts

Sandy Latchford described the heritage designation working group’s work to contact property owners across the county and increase participation. Sandy said four properties were expected to go to council for a designation bylaw on December nineteenth, and that additional properties may proceed in the new year if owners choose to participate.

Staff explained that costs associated with plaques and required notices are expected to rise if more designations move forward in two thousand twenty four. The committee passed a motion recommending council direct staff to bring forward an additional fifteen thousand dollars for the heritage designation project during the two thousand twenty four budget deliberations. The motion was moved by Chris and seconded by Ben. The chair called the vote and the motion carried.

Work plan discussion and location specific follow ups

During the work plan discussion, Councillor Kate MacNaughton raised a public question about signage related to memorialization at Longreach, noting it was marked completed but the sign was not up. Staff said the item was marked completed because the committee’s work was done and it had moved to staff, and staff committed to follow up with planning.

Staff also noted that the street naming task team’s public submissions were open until November fifteenth, with the goal of bringing a final list forward to the committee at the December thirteenth meeting, ahead of a report to council in the new year.

Meeting dates and closing discussion

The committee confirmed the next meeting date as December thirteenth.

Before adjournment, Monica asked for consideration of an in person meeting because of feeling disconnected in a virtual format. Valrie Porter responded that health concerns such as COVID reinfection were a factor, and suggested the committee could look into a hybrid approach where some attend in person and others join by Zoom.

Lori also offered thanks to staff member Anne, noting she was moving on to a new chapter and would be missed.

The meeting then moved to adjournment with members offering to second

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 1:02:18. 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.