Part 2: PEC Heritage Committee Advances Street Naming Plan, Heritage Designations, and Public Engagement - 02/07/2024
- PECConnect
- Feb 7, 2024
- 7 min read
Valrie Porter chaired the meeting and guided every formal step, including agenda approval and minutes approval. Ross moved the minutes, and John Hirsch seconded them, and the committee voted in favour.
Agenda process changes and committee involvement
Becky explained the new agenda process and asked for feedback. The plan was to email members two weeks ahead, set a deadline about six days before agenda release, and keep materials compliant with the procedural bylaw timing.
Valrie Porter supported it and explained it makes it easier for everyone to submit topics fairly.
View the entire PEC Council Meeting; or view our recap.
Historic walking tours, ticket issues, and accessibility
Jessica Chase gave the main update on tours and was direct about the problem: tour attendance has not bounced back after COVID, and ticket sales are still far lower than pre-COVID.
She explained that Graveyard and Gallows will continue, and specialized tours like Demorestville, Consecon, Fifth Town, and Wellington might return depending on scheduling. She also said she wants to bring Ernie Marginson in for an architectural tour because those tours are consistently successful.
Valrie Porter strongly shaped the discussion by pointing out a shift in public expectations. She said people like animated tours with characters, actors, period clothing, and storytelling. She also raised a major practical point: many people cannot do walking tours because of age, mobility limits, and steep hills, so they need seated or virtual versions too. She described a Glenwood format where people can stay seated while the tour is delivered using photos and storytelling.
John Hirsch pushed the tourism promotion angle. He questioned the visibility of tours on Visit The County channels and said they should be promoting these tours because tourists are the main audience. He encouraged more social media promotion and said tourism dollars should be used for this kind of cultural programming.
Jessica Chase agreed and said she would push for better promotion, including videos and social posts.
The committee then voted to receive the presentation, moved by Ben and seconded by Arjon, with the group voting in favour.
Public comments and pressure to take training seriously
Liz Driver spoke during public comments and was very direct. She said the work plan is not fully accurate and that training is being treated too softly.
She made three big points. First, she said the Heritage Impact Assessment guidelines are already done and posted, and committee members need to know them because they will be asked to comment on HIAs during development reviews. Second, she said the Cultural Heritage Landscapes work is starting sooner than the plan suggests, and she named WSP as the awarded consultant. Third, she said heritage legislation training is not optional. She said the committee exists because of the Ontario Heritage Act, and members need proper training to do the job. She suggested contacting the ministry for training, and if that fails, using committee budget to bring in a consultant.
Valrie Porter responded by agreeing training matters and explaining it was delayed because the committee was reorganizing and trying not to overload members. She said she wants advice on what training is actually good and how to roll it out.
John Hirsch thanked Liz and said her comments should lead to changes in the work plan.
The committee voted to receive her comments, moved by Ross and seconded by John Hirsch, with the group voting in favour.
Street naming reserve list and policy changes
Chris Palmer gave the major update on commemorative street names. He explained the task team reviewed 260 names submitted through public engagement and narrowed them down to 160 approved names after emergency service review and recommendations for Indigenous consultation.
He also explained the renaming process. If someone wants to rename a street, it requires 70 percent support from residents on that street, and the replacement name must come from the reserve list. He said the task team has completed its mandate and will go on hiatus unless renaming requests arise.
John Hirsch asked detailed questions and shaped how the committee looked at risk.
He asked whether names missing consent forms should go to council. He supported holding them back until consent is obtained. He asked why Blanding’s turtle was missing. Chris explained emergency response concerns about multiple turtle names confusing 911 calls, and suggested if Blandings is important, they could keep it and remove other turtle names to reduce confusion. He asked if the reserve list can be updated over time. Chris said council could direct that, especially as names are used up or if some never get chosen. He also asked whether developers should use ward-specific names. Chris said ward notes are a recommendation, not a rule, meant to preserve local meaning.
Valrie Porter added that the task team should not just disappear. She suggested an ongoing approach where someone checks regularly whether the list is strong enough, and the team can respond to public feedback after the list becomes more visible.
The committee voted to recommend council approve the reserve list. The motion was moved by Ben, seconded by Arjon, and the group voted in favour.
New clause for errors or new information in street naming
Becky read the proposed clause to clarify how to correct administrative errors or respond to verified new information that shows a name no longer meets policy standards.
John Hirsch said it was a good safety valve and moved the motion. Ross seconded it, and the group voted in favour.
Heritage designation work and the May 4 public meeting
Sandy Latchford explained what the Heritage Designation Working Group is doing. They are contacting owners on the heritage list and encouraging them to designate. The biggest issue is that many owners do not live in the county, so communication and commitment are harder to get.
She said the group will hold an information meeting on May 4, and the main concerns they need to address are insurance myths and resale value fears. She said they want real people who have designated to speak so it does not feel like a scripted pitch.
John Hirsch added that there are three properties nearly ready for designation to come to the committee and then to council, but staff reports were not ready yet. He also said new owners are now coming forward with properties not originally on the list, which shows momentum.
Both Sandy Latchford and John Hirsch focused on making May 4 a strong outreach moment, including Zoom access for out-of-town owners.
Work plan corrections and conservation district impacts
John Hirsch confirmed the Wellington Heritage Conservation District appeal is settled. He said the changes are minor and do not remove buildings from the district. He also said about 13 properties from the heritage list are now covered by the district, so they should not need individual designation work.
Valrie Porter asked what protection the district provides. John clarified it mainly provides protection against demolition, and alterations still require permits reviewed through this committee. Sandy Latchford agreed that demolition protection is the key.
Valrie Porter asked staff to remove conservation district properties from the list so the committee is focusing only on what still needs action.
Committee change and staff transition
Kate MacNaughton announced she accepted a county job and must resign from the committee. She said she will become the Council Committee Coordinator, working with staff, and will still attend meetings but not as a committee member.
The chair and members supported her transition and noted she will still bring continuity.
Final motions and adjournment
The committee voted to receive the updated work plan. Sandy Latchford moved it and John Hirsch seconded it, with the group voting in favour. The next meeting was set for March 6, and they adjourned.
What It Means for Residents
For locals, this matters because it shows the committee is keeping clean records and moving decisions forward without delays, which helps when heritage issues become urgent later. A clearer agenda process affects transparency, helping prevent last-minute decisions and keeping public-facing agenda items predictable, especially for residents who want to follow heritage files or attend.
Tour updates, ticket issues, and accessibility mean that if tours stay mostly tourist-focused, locals may not see heritage as something for them. If tours become accessible and varied, more residents, including seniors, can participate. Better promotion can also increase summer activity, which supports downtown foot traffic and local businesses.
Public comments and pressure to take training seriously affects decision quality. Better training makes the committee stronger when controversial development files come forward. That directly impacts residents living near heritage buildings, main street areas, and older neighbourhoods where character and demolition pressure are real issues.
Street naming reserve lists, policy changes, and new clauses affect community identity. Street names shape how new neighbourhoods feel, and whether local history, ecology, and cultural memory are recognized. Emergency services input matters because unclear names can slow response times, which affects everyone. Safety clauses prevent the county from being stuck with a name that later becomes problematic, helping maintain public trust when new facts surface.
Heritage designation work and the May 4 public meeting affect demolition risk, neighbourhood character, and planning debates. If more owners designate, the county gains stronger tools to preserve important buildings. If owners stay hesitant, heritage loss becomes easier during redevelopment. Conservation districts protect main street character while still allowing reasonable change, meaning fewer surprise demolitions and more predictable planning rules in affected areas.
Staff continuity matters because it can improve how committees run, make agendas smoother, and reduce administrative delays, which affects how quickly public issues are handled.
Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 1:27:09. 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