Part 2: Demolition Procedures, Heritage Permits, and Local Preservation - 06/11/2025

John Hirsch Sets a Practical and Predictable Tone

Councillor John Hirsch, serving as Chair, established a steady and pragmatic tone from the outset. His focus remained consistent throughout the meeting: heritage processes must be clear, predictable, and functional. He stressed that without structured guidance, both staff and applicants are left reacting in real time, often “scrambling” to interpret requirements when issues arise.

Photo: PEC Council (YouTube)

View the entire PEC Council Meeting; or view our recap.

This emphasis on clarity was not abstract. It reflected a broader concern about continuity ensuring that future committees, staff members, and property owners can rely on a system that works consistently rather than one that depends on interpretation in the moment.

Kate MacNaughton Advances the Demolition Review Framework

One of the most significant developments came through Councillor Kate MacNaughton, who presented the draft demolition review procedure with support from planning staff. Her role in advancing this framework was central to one of the meeting’s most consequential outcomes.

The procedure formalizes how the County responds when demolition is proposed for heritage-listed or designated properties. For residents concerned about the gradual loss of heritage buildings, this introduces a clearer and time-bound review process. At the same time, it provides property owners with predictability, replacing uncertainty with defined timelines and expectations.

The committee’s endorsement of this procedure signals a move toward a more structured and defensible approach to heritage protection, balancing preservation priorities with property rights.

Kate MacNaughton and John Hirsch Address the Hillier Tower Tension

Discussion around the Hillier Town Hall communications tower revealed the complexity of balancing infrastructure needs with heritage considerations. Kate MacNaughton confirmed that construction has been paused, with IT staff reassessing both placement and potential heritage impacts.

John Hirsch expanded the conversation by raising concerns about connectivity gaps in other areas, particularly South Marysburgh. His comments highlighted a broader municipal challenge: ensuring reliable internet access while respecting historically sensitive sites.

For residents, this exchange underscores two parallel priorities. Heritage considerations will not be overlooked, but neither will the need for modern infrastructure. The outcome is a more cautious, review-driven approach before work resumes.

Mark Gilbert and Edwin Rowse Shape the Crystal Palace Decision

Photo by Prince Edward County

The approval of the heritage permit for the Old Boys Memorial Entrance at Crystal Palace was shaped heavily by technical input from Mark Gilbert and Edwin Rowse. Mark Gilbert detailed how procurement processes, heritage requirements, and material specifications were carefully coordinated. His explanation covered the importance of matching wood species, maintaining consistent colour treatments, and preserving architectural detailing elements critical to maintaining the site’s historical integrity.

Edwin Rowse, meanwhile, focused on the balance between authenticity and practicality. He addressed the realities of sourcing materials and the need for appropriate substitutions that still respect the original character of the structure.

Their combined input helped guide the committee toward recommending approval of Heritage Permit HP-1025, allowing urgent roof work to proceed without compromising the building’s heritage value.

Support for Main Street Preservation Through Funding Approval

Another notable decision involved the approval of both a heritage permit and a $5,000 heritage property grant for masonry and roof work at 192 Picton Main Street, known locally as Zest Kitchen.

This decision goes beyond regulatory oversight. It demonstrates the County’s willingness to financially support property owners who undertake proper restoration work. By investing in the preservation of a deteriorating Main Street building, the committee reinforced the idea that heritage conservation is a shared responsibility between the municipality and property owners.

Edwin Rowse and Emily Overholt Clarify Roles and Reduce Risk

A substantial portion of the discussion on permits centered on how technical advice is delivered. Edwin Rowse raised concerns about potential liability when the committee provides detailed guidance on construction methods, such as mortar composition or fastening techniques.

In response, staff member Emily Overholt clarified that staff act as the intermediary between the committee and applicants. This distinction is critical. It allows the committee to provide expert insight without assuming direct responsibility for implementation details, while staff ensure that communication remains consistent and appropriately framed.

This exchange highlighted an important operational boundary that protects both the County and committee members while maintaining the quality of guidance provided to applicants.

Collaborative Approach Reflected in Permit Reviews

The committee reviewed and endorsed multiple permit task team recommendations covering signage, masonry repairs, awning removal, and minor alterations. While many of these did not require escalation to council, the discussions demonstrated a collaborative and efficient approach.

Rather than overregulating, the committee focused on refining outcomes through discussion and expert input. This approach allows for flexibility while still maintaining heritage standards, benefiting both property owners and the broader community.

Forward Planning on Windows and Building Materials

Looking ahead, the committee agreed to add heritage windows and acceptable building materials to its work plan. This forward-looking decision reflects increasing pressure from property owners seeking to upgrade buildings for energy efficiency without compromising historical character.

By addressing these issues proactively, the committee aims to provide clearer guidance and reduce uncertainty. For residents and property owners, this means fewer case-by-case debates and more consistent expectations when planning renovations or restorations.

Heritage Plaques Raise Questions of Consistency and Stewardship

The discussion around heritage plaques, prompted by a request for an additional plaque, opened a broader conversation about branding, intellectual property, and fairness.

The committee supported a cost-recovery approach for additional plaques while maintaining County control over production. Though seemingly minor, this issue reflects a larger concern about consistency in how heritage recognition is managed and presented.

A Meeting Focused on Process, Not Conflict

Overall, the meeting stood out not for dramatic debates but for its focus on strengthening process, predictability, and collaboration. Through the contributions of John Hirsch, Kate MacNaughton, Mark Gilbert, Edwin Rowse, and Emily Overholt, the committee worked through practical challenges that directly influence how heritage preservation is carried out.

For residents, the impact is subtle but significant. These decisions shape how buildings are protected, repaired, and adapted ensuring that Prince Edward County’s heritage is managed thoughtfully and consistently in real time.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 1:55:26. 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.