Part 2: Bill 23 Deadlines, Implementation Motion, and Permit Decisions – 02/04/2026
- PECConnect
- Feb 4
- 5 min read
The conversation began with public comments from Gord Gibbins, who questioned whether Appendix B accurately reflected priority heritage properties and whether earlier committee input had been properly incorporated. He raised concerns about development pressure areas, the lack of clarity around priority listings, and the approaching January 1, 2027 deadline created by Bill 23. He emphasized that listed but not designated properties could be at risk if the County does not act quickly.
Committee members then moved into their own discussion.
Edwin Rowse acknowledged that the consultant’s work was largely complete but argued that the real task now is implementation. He proposed that Council receive the plan as a living document and direct staff to work with the committee and other contributors to create a clear process with priorities, timelines, and budgets within six months. He stressed that urgency is necessary given provincial changes affecting listed properties.
View the entire PEC Council Meeting; or view our recap.
Valrie Porter supported that direction and emphasized that Appendix B must be carefully reviewed to ensure it properly supports implementation under the Ontario Heritage Act. She raised the importance of risk mitigation and accuracy, particularly where properties could permanently lose protection if not designated in time.
Bob Waldon expressed concern about approving a document that members openly acknowledged contains errors and omissions. He encouraged collaboration with community experts before the document moves forward and questioned whether it should be formally approved at this stage.
Councillor John Hirsch clarified the procedural pathway. He explained that WSP’s contract is essentially complete and that any additional consultant work would require new funding approved by Council. He suggested that the document be received rather than approved outright, which would allow space for refinement and further work without formally endorsing a flawed version. He also reminded members that implementation would carry financial implications that Council must fully understand.
Janice Gibbins strongly opposed the word approve. She stated clearly that the report contains too many inaccuracies to support full approval and warned that without a dedicated heritage planner, the document could risk sitting on a shelf without meaningful action.
Scott Pordham, speaking on behalf of planning staff, confirmed that the consultant delivered what was outlined in the original scope of work. He noted that staff will summarize public submissions for the upcoming Planning and Development Committee meeting and that Council retains full authority to direct additional work if it chooses. He also acknowledged that some corrections may be straightforward while others would require deeper revisions.
In the end, the committee agreed to recommend that Council receive the Cultural Heritage Master Plan as a living document, direct staff to work with the committee and contributors to develop an implementation process within six months, and work with the Heritage Designation Working Group on options to mitigate risk to listed but not designated properties in light of Bill 23.
The motion was moved by Edwin Rowse and seconded by Councillor John Hirsch.
Voted in favour were Valrie Porter, Edwin Rowse, Councillor John Hirsch, Bob Waldon, Janice, and all other members present. The motion carried unanimously.
Flashback February
Under the Flashback February agenda item, Councillor John Hirsch reported that the Picton Gazette will publish a heritage focused issue. He drafted an article explaining the designation process, addressing common misconceptions about insurance, and encouraging property owners to reach out if they are interested in designation.
Members received the discussion without opposition. All present voted in favour of receiving the item.
Heritage Permit Endorsements
The committee endorsed submissions from the Heritage Permit Task Team regarding HP 17 25 at 178 to 180 Picton Main Street and HP 01 26 at 164 Picton Main Street. These were minor permits, meaning staff make the final decision but the committee’s endorsement is placed on the public record.
All members present voted in favour.
Site Plan Control Application
The committee reviewed SP 17 24 at 347 Picton Main Street, known as The Cape.
Edwin Rowse explained that the application highlights an ongoing issue, namely that site plan review can proceed before a heritage permit is applied for. He suggested that earlier heritage review would benefit both developers and the municipality.
Councillor John Hirsch noted that planning staff are now aware of this sequencing concern and are looking at ways to address it so heritage considerations happen earlier in the development process.
The committee endorsed the Heritage Permit Task Team’s submission on the file. All members present voted in favour.
Heritage Conservation District Signage
Bob Waldon spoke about delays in the Heritage Conservation District signage project. He emphasized that what began as a gateway sign initiative evolved into a broader community driven project shaped by consultation. He described signage as something that builds identity, supports economic opportunity, and reflects a sense of belonging.
Valrie reinforced that signage tells cultural stories and offers opportunities for youth engagement and broader community participation.
The update was received unanimously.
Working Groups
Updates from the Heritage Designation Working Group, Cemetery Task Team, and Heritage Permit Task Team were received.
Janice spoke about the personal side of designation work, explaining that storytelling and one on one conversations often make the difference when property owners consider designation. She also shared an example where a property owner initially agreed to designation but later withdrew after receiving legal advice.
All updates were received with full support from members present.
What This Means for the Locals
The most important takeaway is that the Cultural Heritage Master Plan is moving forward but will not simply be rubber stamped. Council will soon receive it, and further implementation work is expected over the next six months. Residents may see additional consultation and outreach as that process unfolds.
Property owners with listed but not designated buildings should pay close attention. Under Bill 23, municipalities must decide whether to designate or remove listed properties from the register before January 1, 2027. If action is not taken, those properties may lose heritage listing status. That creates a real timeline for owners and for the County.
Finally, changes to how heritage review fits into development applications may be coming. The committee and planning staff have acknowledged that heritage considerations should happen earlier in the planning process to avoid confusion or redesign later on.
In short, the County’s heritage framework is entering a more active phase. Decisions made in the coming year will shape how historic properties are protected, developed, or potentially lost.
Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 2:16:41. 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