Part 1: Cultural Heritage Plan Advances as Planning Committee Debates Next Steps – 02/18/2026
- PECConnect
- Feb 18
- 4 min read
Updated: May 8
The County’s Planning and Development Committee met on February 18, 2026, at Shire Hall, chaired by Councillor David Harrison. The meeting blended long-term heritage policy with day-to-day development decisions, as councillors worked through zoning applications and a long-anticipated Cultural Heritage Master Plan.
The evening unfolded in two distinct parts. First came development matters, including a commercial rezoning and a rural land application. Then the committee turned to a larger question: how the County should protect its built and cultural heritage in the years ahead.
View the entire PEC Council meeting, or continue to speaker comments and councillor votes.
Rezoning to Allow a Veterinary Clinic
The first statutory public meeting focused on a proposal at 2188 County Road 1 in Bloomfield-Hallowell.
An agent representing the property owner explained that the application would amend the current highway commercial zoning to allow an animal clinic as a permitted main use. The clinic would occupy one half of an existing commercial building. An HVAC and plumbing business would remain in the other unit, and a tile business would relocate elsewhere in the County.
Supporting documents were submitted, including a servicing review and traffic brief. The agent stated that no additional parking, landscaping, or driveway changes were required, and that private water and septic services were sufficient for the proposed use.
Councillors asked about servicing capacity, delivery access, and the future roundabout planned for the nearby Highway 62 intersection. The agent indicated that the Ministry of Transportation had reviewed the proposal and raised no concerns related to the rezoning.
Several councillors expressed support, noting the community’s need for veterinary services. No members of the public spoke in opposition. The committee received the oral submissions and adjourned the statutory meeting. A separate rural consent and rezoning application later in the meeting was formally denied, following staff’s recommendation that it did not align with provincial and official plan policies regarding agricultural land.
Cultural Heritage Master Plan Comes Forward
The main policy discussion of the night centered on the County Cultural Heritage Master Plan, a project first authorized by Council in 2021.
Planning Policy Coordinator, Scott Pordham, outlined the purpose of the plan. Prepared by WSP Consultants, it builds on the County’s existing heritage policies and sets out 23 recommendations, 13 of which are considered high priority. The plan is intended to strengthen heritage conservation, identify cultural heritage landscapes, and guide future policy updates and implementation work.
The master plan followed extensive background research and public and Indigenous engagement. Pordham explained that while the plan includes identified heritage resources, it is not intended to serve as a comprehensive inventory of every building or landscape in the County.
Public speakers earlier in the meeting had raised concerns about specific omissions and suggested corrections, including the identification of cemeteries and heritage bridges. Pordham acknowledged that comments submitted after the final draft was posted in December had not yet been incorporated. He noted that Council could direct either staff or the consultant to address those items, subject to budget.
Adoption or Revision?
Councillor John Hirsch, speaking as Council’s representative on the Built and Cultural Heritage Advisory Committee, emphasized the urgency created by provincial legislation. Under current rules, non-designated listed heritage properties will lose certain protections after January 1, 2027, if not formally designated.
Hirsch said the County needs a clear work plan to prioritize those properties and prevent the loss of valuable buildings. He stressed that the master plan should guide that work, but also acknowledged it is not exhaustive and will require updates over time.
Other councillors focused on process and timing. Councillor Janice Maynard questioned whether the plan should be formally adopted before Council sees a proposed implementation work plan outlining staffing and financial implications. Councillor Phil St-Jean raised concerns about the use of the word “adopt,” suggesting Council should first receive the plan and refine it before formal approval. Councillor Sam Branderhorst and others expressed caution about committing additional consulting funds.
Mayor Steve Ferguson noted that the plan has been in development for several years and warned that delaying action could push key decisions into the next Council term, reducing the time available to respond to the 2027 deadline.
Amended Motion Passes
After extended debate, Council approved an amended motion. The committee agreed to remove language that would have immediately adopted the plan and instead directed staff to return within six months with a proposed work plan. The amendment also includes revisions to address identified inaccuracies and omissions, while requiring consideration of staff capacity, financial resources, and priority actions.
With the amendment passed, the main motion carried as revised. The master plan now moves forward to the next stage of review and refinement rather than immediate adoption.
Key Takeaways
A new veterinary clinic is moving closer to opening in Bloomfield, pending final approvals, with no major site changes required.
A rural consent and rezoning application affecting agricultural land was denied based on provincial and local policy concerns.
The Cultural Heritage Master Plan is progressing, but Council has paused full adoption until a clear implementation strategy and corrections are brought back within six months.
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