Part 1 : Heritage Evaluation, Designation Updates, and Provincial Review — 11/08/2023
- PECConnect
- Nov 8, 2023
- 5 min read
The Built and Cultural Heritage Advisory Committee met virtually on November 8, 2023. The meeting was livestreamed and held as an electronic meeting under the County’s procedural bylaw. The committee moved through agenda approvals, heard a presentation about a provincial heritage evaluation process for the Picton Judicial Complex, and then reviewed several committee work items including planning files, heritage permits, and working group updates.
The committee confirmed the agenda with a motion moved by Councillor Braney and seconded by Michael Miller. The chair called the vote and the motion carried.
There were no disclosed pecuniary interests.
The committee then adopted the minutes from the October fourth two thousand twenty three meeting. The motion was moved by Benjamin and seconded by Ross Hamilton. The chair called the vote and the motion carried.
View the entire PEC Council Meeting, or continue to speaker comments and councillor votes>
Announcements and early discussion
During announcements, Councillor Braney shared that he attended architectural heritage tours in Wellington and Consecon hosted through the Ontario Architectural Conservancy of Ontario, Prince Edward County chapter. He mentioned that the tours helped show heritage and architectural examples in the community and suggested the committee consider an in person visit in the future, including a possible tour of Glenwood Cemetery.
Presentation on the Picton Judicial Complex heritage evaluation
The committee heard from Miranda and Lindsay, who explained that Infrastructure Ontario has retained ASI to complete a cultural heritage evaluation update of the Picton Judicial Complex. The presenters said the complex includes the courthouse, the former jail, the former jail yard enclosed by a stone wall, the land registry office, and surrounding grounds. They described the complex as a Kingston limestone structure in a residential area of Picton, and said it has been in continuous operation as a courthouse since eighteen thirty four.
The presenters explained that the property was previously evaluated in two thousand six, but earlier reporting does not meet current standards. They said the updated work uses current criteria and includes more consultation, with outreach to heritage organizations and Indigenous communities as part of gathering information.
Miranda also provided a plain language overview of how municipal heritage and provincial heritage processes differ under the Ontario Heritage Act. She described municipal tools such as designation and municipal registers, and described provincial identification and evaluation processes, including references to provincial standards and guidelines and evaluation criteria.
The presenters said a site visit was scheduled for that week, and a draft report was expected early the following month.
Questions raised by committee members
Ross asked how a newer addition associated with Service Ontario or Service Canada fits into the heritage evaluation. Lindsay said it was not currently considered a heritage attribute but would be reviewed as part of how the site evolved. Miranda added that comments about whether additions contribute to heritage value are helpful
feedback for the evaluation.
Monica asked what it means if an element is considered contributing or not contributing, and whether that would affect use of the building. Miranda explained that identifying heritage attributes does not mean parts are removed or that the building stops being cared for. She described it as a way to clarify which features are central to the heritage lens when planning long term care.
Valrie Porter asked whether regular residents would have a way to provide input, noting the courthouse and Service Ontario location is important for access and parking. Lindsay said the work is focused on heritage minded stakeholders and there were no plans for a broad public meeting as part of this heritage update program.
Lindsay and Miranda both emphasized that no development or changes were being proposed through this process, and that the work is focused on updating heritage records and documentation.
Several committee members discussed the value of keeping the community engaged with heritage buildings, including using the courthouse as a positive example of a well used heritage property.
Motion to submit committee feedback to the province and receive the presentation
After the discussion, Councillor Kate MacNaughton summarized key feedback points on screen for the committee. The committee passed a motion to submit feedback to the province, 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.
Planning file and heritage permits
The committee reviewed Planning File OPA-04-23, Base 31. Staff noted it was shared with the heritage permit task team and no comments were received. The committee passed a motion to receive its discussion, moved by Chris and seconded by Michael.
For the master list of permits, staff said no list was included and planning staff were not present. Staff provided a verbal update that one 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.
Heritage designation working group update and funding discussion
The committee received a verbal update from the heritage designation working group. Sandy Latchford, chair, said the group reviewed the results of a public information session held October twenty third, where more than fifty people attended after receiving letters about potential designation. The group discussed issues raised at the session, including concerns people expressed about insurance.
Sandy said there were four properties recommended for designation that were expected to be included in a bylaw going to council on December nineteenth. Sandy also said a small number of property owners had indicated they wanted to proceed with designation, while others had declined, and many had not responded. The group said a second letter and other engagement strategies were being planned to increase responses.
Staff added that a recommended motion on the agenda proposed an additional fifteen thousand dollars in funding for the heritage designation project, tied to costs such as plaques, notices, and certificates.
Key Takeaways
Residents heard that Infrastructure Ontario is updating its heritage documentation for the Picton Judicial Complex, using current standards and consultation focused on heritage stakeholders.
The committee discussed how identifying heritage attributes helps guide long term conservation and does not automatically change how the building is used day to day.
The committee heard that four new heritage designations were expected to move toward council approval on December nineteenth, and that additional funding was being requested to support plaques and notice requirements if more designations proceed in two thousand twenty four.
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.
Comments