Part 2: Heritage Plan Amended, Farmland Application Denied, and Rezoning Debated – 02/18/2026
- PECConnect
- Feb 18
- 6 min read
Updated: May 8
After the main discussion items, the meeting leaned into the details of the Planning and Development Committee meeting on February 18, 2026: who raised concerns, who pushed for changes, and what direction the committee actually voted to take. Here is how it broke down, topic by topic, with the key names attached. The meeting was chaired by Councillor David Harrison. There were no pecuniary interests declared, and the agenda was confirmed through a motion moved by Councillor Bill Roberts.
View the entire PEC Council Meeting; or view our recap.
Cultural Heritage Master Plan
This was the biggest conversation of the night, and it brought out the clearest differences in comfort level, especially around the word “adopt” and the cost and workload that follows.
Scott Pordham, Manager of Planning, framed the plan as a County initiated project approved in 2021, with WSP Consultants starting work in January 2024. Pordham said the plan includes 23 recommendations, with 13 marked high priority, and emphasized it is meant to guide heritage policy and implementation rather than act as a complete inventory of every resource.
Councillor John Hirsch moved the original motion to receive the plan and adopt it, and asked detailed questions on how updates would work over time and how BCHAC would be involved. Hirsch also tied the urgency to the January 1, 2027 deadline affecting listed but non designated heritage properties, explaining the practical risk of losing the ability to pause demolitions through the listing tool after that date.
Councillor Phil St-Jean pushed back on using the word “adopt” at this stage. St-Jean said there were too many unanswered questions around cost, timing, and how the plan’s recommendations would actually be carried out. St-Jean also raised concerns that public comments submitted after the final posting in December did not appear to have received responses yet.
Councillor Janice Maynard supported heritage protection in principle but questioned whether Council should adopt the plan before seeing a clearer work plan with staffing and budget implications. Maynard said it would be better to direct staff to return with at least a draft implementation outline first.
Councillor Roy Pennell brought the property rights issue back to the table. Pennell said the County has previously designated properties without owner support and stressed that the municipality should not repeat that experience. Pennell also asked how heritage considerations interact with situations where artifacts or historically significant features are associated with private lands.
A staff clarification was made on process: staff noted that legislation does not require property owner support to designate, but that the County’s usual approach is to seek owner participation.
Mayor Steve Ferguson argued that the County needs to keep moving, noting the length of time already invested. Ferguson also asked how quickly staff could return with next steps, and raised the risk that delay pushes work into the next council term, right when the 2027 deadline is approaching.
Councillor Phil Prinzen did not take a long speaking role in this section, but earlier in the meeting he had echoed the theme of reducing unnecessary barriers for applicants and supported practical movement through the agenda.
What the committee voted to do on the Master Plan
The motion was reshaped mid debate. An amended direction was put forward to remove the stronger “adopt now” language and focus on a work plan and corrections first. The committee voted on the amendment and it carried. Then the committee voted on the main motion as amended and it carried.
Based on the discussion captured in the transcript, the outcome was that the committee received the Cultural Heritage Master Plan and directed staff to return within six months with a proposed work plan that considers staff capacity and financial resources. The direction also included addressing identified inaccuracies and omissions, with staff indicating that part of the intent would be to inform the public whether their submitted comments were incorporated.
Public voices on heritage
Three registered speakers used the audience comment section to press for specific changes and a clearer implementation path.
Gord Gibbins, speaking for the Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County, supported WSP’s recommendations and asked for stronger direction that staff work with BCHAC and other heritage experts, especially to address the Bill 23 timeline and the 2027 deadline.
Liz Driver, speaking for PEC Heritage Conservancy, called the plan a major turning point but said it should be “correct and clean,” with clearer research references and updates that reflect public input. Driver also supported the recommendation for dedicated heritage capacity, either through a staff role or qualified consulting support.
John Lyons, local historian, raised specific concerns about cemetery selection and wording around Palin’s Bridge and nearby private property. Lyons said he met with staff about these issues but wanted Council to hear them publicly as well.
Animal clinic rezoning at 2188 County Road 1
This item included questions and comments rather than a recorded final planning approval vote in the portion provided, but the exchange shows who raised what.
Councillor Phil St-Jean asked about the planned roundabout at Highway 62 and County Road 1, possible expropriation, and concerns about the site’s past and truck movements.
Councillor Janice Maynard asked about water and septic servicing capacity, given the change of use.
Mayor Steve Ferguson thanked the owner for engaging with the Ministry of Transportation, noting the intersection safety concern.
Councillors Prinzen and Grosso both commented that the change was minor and questioned why such a simple tenant change required so much process.
County wide farmland policy: the lot adjustment application that ended in denial
This was the file where the applicant side requested a deferral, and staff reiterated they could not support the application.
Councillor Phil St-Jean initially moved a deferral after the applicant requested more time. Jane Lesslie seconded the deferral, but after staff confirmed their position would not change, St-Jean withdrew the deferral motion.
Staff, including Stuart Cade, explained why they were not recommending approval. Cade said the proposal was not in line with provincial and official plan policy because it effectively turns two agricultural lots into one agricultural lot plus a residential lot, reducing agricultural flexibility. Staff also noted the dwelling’s recent build date did not meet the surplus dwelling style policy path they evaluated it against, and they referenced concerns raised through the Agricultural Advisory Committee.
The vote that followed was clear in the continuation portion: a denial motion for Report DS12-2026 was moved by Councillor Phil St-Jean and seconded by Councillor Roberts, and it carried.
Wrap up votes
Near the end of the meeting, Councillor Janice Maynard moved a motion, seconded by Councillor Branderhorst, to receive items approved under the Delegated Authority by law for information. That carried. The meeting adjourned at 9:03 PM through a motion moved by Councillor Branderhorst and seconded by Councillor Phil Prinzen.
What this means for locals
Residents near County Road 1 and Highway 62 heard two things at once. The animal clinic proposal is framed as a tenant change inside an existing commercial building, with servicing and parking said to be adequate. At the same time, councillors flagged concerns tied to the upcoming roundabout and how the site functions day to day, like deliveries and traffic flow. Even when those issues are not technically part of the rezoning question, they are clearly on the radar.
The heritage discussion made it clear that some residents feel their area did not show up strongly in the plan’s identified resources. Staff and consultants described the plan as a starting point, driven heavily by engagement input. That means areas that did not get pinned, submitted, or highlighted during engagement may feel overlooked until future updates.
The talk around past heritage loss, including a church demolition remembered by councillors, shows why some members want urgency, especially with the 2027 deadline looming. The practical issue is not abstract. If a property is not designated and falls off the listed tool after 2027, Council may have fewer options to pause and consider heritage value if demolition comes forward.
For rural residents watching severances and lot changes, the denial on the agricultural file reinforces the County’s current stance. Even when the number of lots stays the same, staff and committee attention will focus on whether farmland is being functionally reduced and whether a residential lot is being created inside an agricultural context.
The committee did not fully adopt the Cultural Heritage Master Plan on the spot. Instead, it chose a middle path: receive it, correct it, and require a proposed work plan in six months that considers staffing and budget reality. For locals, that means the plan is moving forward, but the next big step is not another glossy document. It is a practical roadmap showing what can actually be done, by whom, and with what resources.
Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 3:04:36. 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