Part 1: PEC Heritage Committee Pushes for Provincial Deadline Extension and Stronger Enforcement Tools - 04/03/2024
- PECConnect
- Apr 3, 2024
- 4 min read
Meeting Opening and Administrative Matters
The meeting started with technical delays and difficulty reaching quorum due to connection issues and one recent resignation. Once quorum was achieved, the meeting was officially called to order and confirmed as live streamed and recorded. The agenda was approved, no conflicts of interest were declared, and the February 7, 2024 minutes were approved without changes.
There were no general announcements other than the resignation that affected quorum.
View the entire PEC Council meeting, or continue to speaker comments and councillor votes>
Deputation on Heritage Designation Deadline Extension
A deputation was presented about a province wide issue affecting heritage properties. The Ontario government has set a deadline requiring municipalities to either designate listed heritage properties or remove them from heritage registers by the end of 2024. Removing properties would strip them of basic demolition protections.
The deputation explained that Prince Edward County has 226 listed properties, most designation work is done by volunteers, and the process is slow and resource intensive. Research, owner meetings, documentation, and approvals all take time, especially with seasonal residents and limited staffing.
It was explained that many municipalities across Ontario are facing the same challenge and that several councils have already asked the province to extend the deadline by five years. The deputation asked the committee to support a motion requesting council to ask the province to amend the Ontario Heritage Act to allow more time.
The discussion emphasized:
The lack of downside to an extension.
The risk of losing heritage protections if the deadline is not changed
The importance of solidarity with other municipalities.
The reality that the current timeline is unrealistic for volunteer driven programs.
The committee agreed the request aligns directly with the work council assigned to them.
Heritage Act Enforcement Procedures Report
A staff report was presented explaining gaps in heritage enforcement tools. While designation and heritage permits exist, enforcement under the Ontario Heritage Act is limited. Outside of court action, there are few tools to stop or correct unauthorized changes, especially when work does not require a building permit.
The report explained that once heritage features are damaged or removed, they cannot be restored, making enforcement timing critical. The proposed solution is to strengthen enforcement by integrating heritage protections into the Property Standards Bylaw.
This approach would allow orders to comply, enable faster intervention during unauthorized work, allow administrative monetary penalties instead of lengthy court cases, and tie heritage permit conditions directly to enforceable standards.
It was noted this approach has been used successfully in other municipalities and could be implemented as part of the county’s ongoing bylaw review. The committee discussed real examples where inappropriate construction methods permanently damaged heritage buildings, reinforcing the need for stop work authority and deterrence.
Discussion on Heritage Designation Extension Motion
The committee returned to the deputation issue and discussed the best procedural path. While staff noted council approval would be required, members strongly felt the committee had a responsibility to formally state its position since heritage designation work was mandated to them by council.
The committee agreed it would be inappropriate to remain silent and that council needed clear feedback from the advisory body doing the work. A motion was brought forward supporting the request to extend the provincial designation deadline and asking council to authorize the mayor to send a letter to the province.
Heritage Designation Bylaw Template
A draft standardized heritage designation bylaw template was reviewed. The goal is to improve consistency across designation bylaws and clearly link each designation to the criteria in the Ontario Heritage Act.
The proposed format separates: A concise bylaw using standardized criteria. A detailed schedule that can include photos, historical context, and protected features.
Discussion focused on the importance of clearly identifying which features are protected so owners understand what requires approval and what does not. This clarity was seen as critical to encouraging voluntary designations and reducing fear that owners cannot make reasonable changes.
The committee generally supported the idea as an information tool and consistency measure.
Cemetery Funding Correspondence
Correspondence from another municipality was reviewed regarding the financial burden of abandoned cemeteries being transferred to municipalities without funding support.
Discussion highlighted that municipalities must absorb costs for surveys, safety work, tree removal, record keeping, and maintenance with no provincial funding. Some concern was raised about a proposal suggesting the province become the default cemetery owner, which was seen as unrealistic.
The committee agreed funding support was the real issue and decided to refer the correspondence to the Cemetery Task Team to develop recommendations and bring back options for action.
Working Group Updates and Work Plan Review
Verbal updates were received from working groups, noting:
Heritage designations are ongoing with several nearing completion
No new heritage permits were issued recently
Cemetery discussions will continue following staff consultations
The work plan was reviewed and updated. Some items were marked as completed, including sidewalk patio consultation and past correspondence. Others remain active, including enforcement improvements and training resources.
The next meeting was confirmed for May 1, 2024.
Key Takeaways
The committee formally supported requesting a provincial extension to the heritage designation deadline due to workload realities and risk to heritage protection.
New enforcement tools tied to the Property Standards Bylaw were presented as a way to close serious gaps in heritage protection.
Cemetery funding pressures were recognized, with next steps delegated to a task team for detailed recommendations.
Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 1:37:57. 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