Part 2: Task Team, Crystal Palace Roof, and Macaulay Church Permit – 03/04/2026
- PECConnect
- Mar 4
- 5 min read
Following the broader discussion of heritage planning and preservation projects, the March 4, 2026 meeting also included several decisions and motions that moved specific projects forward. These votes and discussions involved several committee members, planning staff, and project leads, each weighing in on how heritage work should move ahead in the County.
Here is a closer look at who spoke, who supported the motions, and what those decisions mean in practical terms.
View the entire PEC Council Meeting; or view our recap.
Cultural Heritage Master Plan Task Team
One of the first decisions related to how the committee will support the next stage of the Cultural Heritage Master Plan. Planning staff explained that council had asked them to return with a work plan outlining how the master plan’s recommendations will be implemented. Committee members agreed that their experience could help guide those priorities.
During the discussion, Edwin Rowse suggested that the committee work directly with planning staff to help organize the plan’s priorities. Bob Waldon supported that idea and stressed that local knowledge from volunteers and heritage advocates could be valuable in shaping the work plan.
After discussion, the committee approved a motion directing Janice Gibbins and Edwin Rowse to meet with planning staff to help develop the work plan tied to council’s direction.
The motion was moved by Edwin Rowse and seconded by Bob Waldon, and it passed with the committee voting in favour. This effectively creates a small working partnership between committee members and planning staff as the County finalizes the plan’s next phase.
Crystal Palace Roof Replacement
The committee then addressed a practical issue involving the Crystal Palace building in Picton. County staff explained that replacing the aging cedar roof raised a procedural problem. Procurement rules normally require the contractor and materials to be finalized before the heritage committee reviews the work. That sequence could create problems if the committee later disagrees with the proposed materials.
Staff member Mark explained that the safest approach was to confirm the committee’s position on the roofing material before the project proceeds to tender.
Committee members reviewed the recommendation that the building use a VicWest metal roofing product to replace the cedar shake roof.
Councillor John Hirsch supported the idea and noted that specifying the product upfront would prevent conflicts between the heritage permit process and procurement rules.
The committee approved the recommendation endorsing the VicWest roofing product. At the same time, members also supported a second motion directing the Heritage Permit Task Team to prepare a list of heritage considerations for projects involving municipally owned buildings. That list will help guide staff during early planning stages before contracts are finalized.
Both parts of the motion were moved by Edwin Rowse and seconded by Michael Miller and were approved by the committee.
Macaulay Church Heritage Permit
The committee also reviewed a heritage permit for work at Macaulay Church at 23 Church Street in Picton.
Staff explained that the roof project had taken more than a year to organize because engineers needed to address structural issues in the building’s roof framing before replacement work could begin.
The proposed solution involved reinforcing the structure and installing a metal roof that matches other heritage buildings at Macaulay Heritage Park.
During the discussion, Edwin Rowse asked questions about the roof colour and suggested that a dark grey finish might blend better with the church’s remaining wood shingle steeple.
Museum staff explained that the contractor had originally specified matte black roofing to match other buildings on the site. However, they agreed to check with the contractor to see if the grey option could still be accommodated without changing the contract.
After discussion, the committee voted to recommend that County Council approve Heritage Permit Application HP-02-26 for the Macaulay Church roof project.
The motion was moved by Bob Waldon and seconded by Michael, and the committee voted in favour. Final approval will now come from County Council at a future council meeting.
Updates From Task Teams
Several working groups also provided brief updates. Bob Waldon, speaking for the Cemetery Task Team, said the group has not yet met but expects to begin reviewing cemetery conditions across the county later this year.
The Remembrance and Commemoration of Prince Edward County Veterans Task Team reported that it will hold its first meeting soon to begin reviewing research and historical material related to veterans memorialization projects.
Meanwhile, Edwin Rowse raised questions about several development projects affecting heritage properties, including 155 Picton Main Street, Base31, The Drake in Wellington, and The CAPE development. Planning staff confirmed that heritage conditions remain attached to those projects and that updated drawings will be reviewed before construction proceeds.
What This Means for the Locals
Most of the decisions made at this meeting deal with the behind the scenes work of protecting heritage buildings and planning future preservation projects. For residents, that work will show up in a few visible ways over the next year.
Two well known heritage buildings in Picton will see progress. The Crystal Palace roof replacement will move forward once procurement is completed, and Macaulay Church is expected to receive a new roof once council formally approves the heritage permit. Both projects aim to extend the life of historic structures that are regularly visited by locals and tourists.
The Cultural Heritage Master Plan is getting closer to implementation. The small task team working with planning staff will help decide which heritage priorities move forward first. That could include future designations, heritage landscape protections, and interpretive signage projects across the county.
The committee is starting to tighten the process around heritage projects. By adding early consultation between staff and heritage experts, the county hopes to avoid delays and protect historic buildings without slowing down necessary maintenance work.
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