Part 1: PEC Built and Cultural Heritage Advisory Committee Training on Ontario Heritage Act Changes - 11/20/2024

Prince Edward County’s Built and Cultural Heritage Advisory Committee held a special virtual meeting focused entirely on training and education rather than formal decision-making. The session was designed to help committee members, municipal staff, and heritage working group participants better understand the Ontario Heritage Act and the significant changes introduced through Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act.

Unlike regular heritage meetings, no votes were taken on specific heritage properties, demolitions, or conservation districts. Instead, the meeting functioned as a detailed refresher on how heritage protection works under provincial law and how municipalities must now adapt to new provincial requirements affecting heritage designation, heritage registers, and conservation districts.

Photo: PEC Council (YouTube)

View the entire PEC Council meeting, or continue to speaker comments and councillor votes.

The session was fully virtual and livestreamed publicly, allowing residents and observers to follow the discussion as committee members reviewed the evolving legal framework surrounding heritage preservation in Ontario.

Heritage Protection Extends Beyond Historic Buildings

One of the first topics discussed was the broader definition of heritage under the Ontario Heritage Act.

Presenters emphasized that heritage conservation is not limited to preserving old houses or architecturally significant buildings. Under Ontario law, heritage can also include streetscapes, cemeteries, cultural landscapes, archaeological sites, industrial structures, bridges, villages, and entire heritage districts.

The training stressed that age alone does not automatically make a property historically significant. In order to qualify for heritage protection, a property or area must demonstrate recognized cultural, historical, architectural, or contextual value.

The presenters also explained that heritage conservation often serves broader community goals beyond preservation itself. Benefits discussed during the session included tourism development, environmental sustainability through adaptive reuse, support for local identity and civic pride, and economic benefits tied to maintaining historic character within communities.

For Prince Edward County, where tourism, rural character, and heritage identity play a major role in community planning and economic development, the discussion reinforced why heritage policy continues to remain an important municipal issue.

Council Holds Legal Authority Over Heritage Decisions

A major portion of the session focused on clarifying the roles of council, heritage committees, and municipal staff within the heritage approval process.

Presenters explained that municipal council holds the formal legal authority under the Ontario Heritage Act. This includes powers related to heritage designation, demolition approvals, alterations to designated properties, and the creation of heritage conservation districts.

However, once a municipality establishes a municipal heritage committee, council is legally required to consult that committee before making many heritage-related decisions.

The training repeatedly emphasized a simple distinction:

• Heritage committees provide advice and recommendations.

• Council makes the final legal decisions.

• Municipal staff support both processes administratively and technically.

This clarification appeared intended to reinforce governance boundaries and ensure committee members clearly understand their advisory role within the broader municipal decision-making system.

Bill 23 Introduces Major Changes to Heritage Rules

Much of the meeting focused on the impact of Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act, which introduced several significant changes to heritage practices across Ontario.

Presenters explained that the province’s goal was to create greater consistency, transparency, and predictability for both municipalities and property owners, particularly in relation to housing development timelines and land-use planning.

Several key legislative changes were highlighted during the session:

• Listed but non-designated properties must now meet at least one formal heritage criterion in order to remain on a municipal heritage register.

• Listed properties can only remain on the register for two years unless they are formally designated.

• If a property is removed from the register, it cannot be relisted for five years.

• New heritage designations must now meet at least two of the nine provincial heritage criteria instead of only one.

• Municipal heritage registers must now be publicly available online.

The presenters noted that these changes significantly alter how municipalities manage heritage inventories and prioritize potential designations moving forward. For heritage committees, the changes create greater pressure to review and evaluate properties more efficiently before timelines expire.

Heritage Conservation District Rules Become More Structured

The training session also included a detailed explanation of how Heritage Conservation Districts function under the updated legislation.

Unlike individual property designations, heritage conservation districts allow municipalities to manage change across entire areas or neighbourhoods that share historical or cultural significance.

Presenters explained that districts help municipalities guide redevelopment, renovations, streetscape changes, and new construction in ways that preserve the overall character of an area rather than focusing only on single buildings.

Under the updated Bill 23 rules, new Heritage Conservation Districts created after the legislation came into effect must now meet stricter evaluation standards. Specifically, at least 25 percent of properties within a proposed district must satisfy two heritage criteria.

However, presenters stressed that in practice this threshold is generally not difficult to meet and is rarely expected to prevent legitimate district designations from moving forward.

Wellington Heritage Conservation District Highlighted

Special attention was given during the session to Wellington’s recently created Heritage Conservation District and how the updated provincial rules apply moving forward.

The presenters explained that Wellington’s district must now operate within the framework established by Bill 23, including updated designation requirements and evaluation standards.

The discussion reinforced how heritage conservation districts are increasingly expected to balance preservation goals with development pressures, housing needs, and evolving provincial policy priorities.

For residents living within heritage districts, these rules can directly affect renovation approvals, demolition permissions, streetscape changes, and future redevelopment proposals.

Training Session Reflects Changing Heritage Landscape

Overall, the session reflected how rapidly Ontario’s heritage planning system is evolving under recent provincial legislation.

Rather than debating individual properties or controversial applications, the meeting focused on helping committee members and staff understand the legal and procedural framework that will shape future heritage decisions across Prince Edward County.

The training also highlighted a growing tension visible in many Ontario municipalities: balancing heritage preservation with provincial pressure to accelerate housing development and streamline planning processes.

For residents, the discussion offered insight into how future heritage designations, conservation districts, and redevelopment decisions may increasingly be shaped by these updated provincial rules and timelines.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 1:05:52. 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.