Part 1: New Heritage Committee Launches Amid Bill 23 and Cemetery Licences - 03/22/2023
- PECConnect
- Mar 22, 2023
- 6 min read
The County held its first meeting of the newly reconfigured Built and Cultural Heritage Advisory Committee on Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 9:30 am, meeting virtually over Zoom and livestreamed for the public.
Anne Kantharajah, Deputy Clerk called the meeting to order and confirmed it would run under the County’s procedural bylaw for electronic meetings. The committee’s mix of members reflected its expanded scope, bringing together people connected to heritage, museums, and cemeteries, alongside council representation.
View the entire PEC Council meeting, or continue to speaker comments and councillor votes>
The first big piece of business was choosing leadership. Councillor John Hirsch nominated Sandra Latchford, as chair, and the nomination carried.
Hirsch was then nominated and appointed as vice chair. From there, the committee adopted minutes from three predecessor groups, the Heritage Advisory Committee, the Cemetery Advisory Committee, and the Museum Advisory Committee.
This mattered because the County effectively merged three lanes of work into one table. Adopting those past minutes was a formal way of acknowledging that history and clearing the deck so the new committee could move forward with a shared record of what came before.
Orientation and ground rules for committee work
Kantharajah then delivered a detailed orientation presentation on procedures and best practices for the 2022 to 2026 term.
In the discussion, the practical message was that advisory committees recommend, but council decides, and the public is watching, literally, now that committee meetings are livestreamed.
The presentation walked through the bigger framework behind committee work, including the County’s procedural rules, expectations for staying on agenda topics, and the limits on what committees can revisit once council has made a decision. It also covered two standards that shape everything a committee member does, the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act rules about financial interests, and the County’s Code of Conduct expectations around integrity, respect, and fairness.
After questions, the committee voted to receive the presentation.
Early signs of what will dominate the workload, Bill 23 and heritage risk
When the meeting reached correspondence, the chair flagged a submission from the Ontario Historical Society related to Bill 23 More Homes Built Faster Act 2022.
Even before the committee got into deeper planning, it was clear Bill 23 was going to cast a long shadow over how the County protects heritage.
That theme became much more direct later, when Councillor Hirsch raised the real world implications the committee could be facing, including a large number of listed properties that could drop off the County’s heritage list if decisions are not made in time, and changes affecting heritage conservation districts. This was not framed as a debate in the meeting. It came through as a warning about volume and deadlines, and a signal that this committee’s first few months would likely be about triage and work planning.
What past committees left behind, and why the new committee paused it
The committee formally received memos to file from the previous Heritage, Museum, and Cemetery committees, but agreed the discussion would be better handled at the next meeting, with the possibility of drafting a work plan and setting up working groups.
This was a practical choice. The committee had just been formed, leadership had just been selected, and members were still getting oriented. Rather than rush through legacy issues, they signaled they wanted to take a more structured approach and decide how to organize the work.
Cemetery licences, potential acquisitions, and the County’s limits
Director of Operations Adam Goheen, gave a verbal update on potential cemetery acquisitions and what triggered the County’s involvement.
He explained that the County already has control of many cemeteries, many of them described as pioneer or inactive, and that maintaining them is a significant ongoing responsibility.
Goheen said the County was contacted by the Bereavement Authority of Ontario during an audit process, after several cemeteries could not be linked to responsive licensees. The County helped connect with owners, and three of the four licence situations were resolved through renewals, with one still outstanding.
The committee also heard about another cemetery situation where the County was working through a possible acquisition process tied to access and land requirements.
The discussion matters because it showed the County’s role is not just cultural. It is operational and legal. When cemetery licences lapse or no one is clearly responsible, the problem can land on the municipality, even when sites are on private land. The committee then voted to receive Goheen’s verbal report.
A Heritage Permit Task Team gets rebuilt
Planner Emily Overholt explained the reason for re establishing the Heritage Permit Task Team, including ambiguity over whether some permits should be treated as major or minor, since that affects whether staff can approve them or whether they must go to committee.
In other words, this task team is meant to prevent process confusion and bottlenecks, and to make sure heritage decisions are handled consistently and defensibly. Overholt noted the County received about 20 heritage permit applications in the previous year. The committee approved the draft terms of reference, agreed to forward them to council for final approval, and appointed Michael Miller, Councillor Chris Braney, and Ross Hamilton to the task team.
Tracking permit activity and renewing a province wide network
The committee then received an updated Master List of Permits, with Overholt explaining it as a tracking tool that logs receipt dates, circulation dates, and outcomes like approvals, deferrals, or denials.
They also approved renewal of the Community Heritage Ontario membership, with Kantharajah explaining the role of the organization and confirming the fee is paid through the operating budget.
This matters in a bigger municipal context because heritage committees across Ontario are dealing with the same legislative shifts, and shared advocacy and guidance can help local committees avoid reinventing the wheel.
The meeting ends where the real work begins, planning the work plan
Near the end, Councillor Hirsch urged the committee to use the next meeting as a strategy session, focused on building a work plan and forming working groups. In that discussion, he raised Bill 23 related pressures and pointed to major files the committee may need to track closely, including the Wellington Heritage Conservation District and the impacts of legislative changes on listed properties and heritage conservation districts.
Mayor Steve Ferguson asked for clarity that working group formation would be properly placed on the next agenda, and staff confirmed it would be.
The next meeting date was set for April 5, 2023, and the meeting adjourned at 10:50 am.
The overall feel of this first meeting was foundational, but not slow. The committee handled the basics of leadership and procedure, then quickly surfaced the reality that heritage work in 2023 was not just about individual buildings or single permits. It was also about managing new provincial rules, keeping up with administrative responsibilities, and organizing a workload that spans cemeteries, museums, and built heritage all at once.
Key Takeaways for the Residents
The County has now formed a single committee with a wider mandate that covers built heritage, museums, and cemeteries.
The committee is preparing for heavier heritage pressure tied to Bill 23 More Homes Built Faster Act 2022 and related heritage deadlines and processes.
The practical municipal responsibilities like cemetery licensing and heritage permit classification can directly shape what gets protected, how fast applications move, and where the County may be required to step in.
Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 1:16:32. 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