ACO Port Hope asked heritage-related questions to Port Hope’s Municipal Electoral Candidates. Responses are posted with permission and are presented in alphabetical order.
Also see:
Part 1
The Municipality of Port Hope is a well-respected heritage town with over 200 designated properties and two existing Heritage Conservation Districts. Moreover, the rural landscapes embracing Lakeshore Rood to the west and the Ganaraska River to the north are remarkable cultural heritage sites that reflect the interaction of a natural environment featuring lake or river views, rich farmland and environmentally important ravines, marshes and forested lands with historically significant farmsteads, barns and landmarks such as the Hole in the Wall.
Q1: What strategies would you suggest to further ensure that Port Hope’s remarkable heritage structures and landscapes are protected, conserved and restored in the face of ongoing growth and development?
Les Andrews: In our negotiations with OPG, Council will most likely be asked to rezone farmland, purchased by OPG, into another category, which could include utilizing land for storage sites or staging areas (industrial/ commercial zoning). Council need to be very diligent and negotiate firmly to protect this farmland from being turned into commercial usage areas. Future Councils need to be very cognizant of all heritage attributes. I would suggest that an ACO Advisory Committee be established, to advise Council on heritage issues and concerns.
Amelia Bray: Port Hope’s heritage is one of our greatest assets, and protecting it should be part of how we plan for growth, not something considered after development decisions have been made. I would support stronger, proactive protection of designated properties and our Heritage Conservation Districts through clear guidelines, restoration incentives and better access to heritage expertise. Making it easier for property owners to maintain and restore heritage buildings can prevent deterioration and reduce the pressure to replace them. I also believe we need to protect the broader cultural landscapes that make Port Hope unique. The relationship between the Ganaraska River, agricultural lands, farmsteads, barns, forests, ravines and landmarks is part of our community’s heritage. As we grow, new development should respect existing heritage, streetscapes, views and natural features. We should also encourage adaptive reuse, allowing heritage properties to remain active and economically viable. Our goal should be to preserve Port Hope’s character while ensuring it remains a living, thriving community.
Caleb Carisse: Port Hope’s heritage is an integral part of our identity, charm, and history. Regarding downtown, the rural corridor along Lakeshore Road, the land around Wesleyville village, and the agricultural property near the proposed Wesleyville site; all of it needs long-term protection, not recognition. Five things I would endorse. First, give Heritage Port Hope Advisory Committee more teeth: expand its remit to proactively identify and nominate protection areas, with council giving its recommendations weight. Second, in conjunction with the Environmental Advisory Committee, assess the Wesleyville-area agricultural lands for cultural heritage value, not just ecological impact. Third, real municipal standing in these growth decisions. A stronger “seat at the table” for Wesleyville and PHAI. Fourth, treat tree canopy as heritage in its own right, so canopy impact needs to be a development principle, not a values statement. Fifth, ensure new development stays additive, not imitative.
Claire Holloway Wadhwani: What makes Port Hope feel like Port Hope is not any one building. It is the whole picture, our downtown streetscapes and the barns, ravines and farmsteads along Lakeshore Road and the Ganaraska. Protecting that starts before an application ever arrives. The Official Plan and zoning by-law we are updating now are the opportunity. I want our cultural heritage landscapes identified and mapped in the Official Plan, so their value is settled policy rather than something we argue case by case, under deadline. Three things follow. Incentives, because designation without financial tools leaves the full cost on individual owners, and our Community Improvement Plan powers under section 28 of the Planning Act are underused. Capacity, because rules we cannot enforce are not protection. And adaptive reuse, almost always the lower carbon and lower cost path, which I have supported at 39 Pine and the Port Hope High School.
Miranda Lukaniuk: I would be in support of or subscribe to any delegation to grant historical designation to all properties and environments with the argument that film productions would favour the preserved areas. I would also market and advocate to all of my film contacts that because of this strict designation they can guarantee that there will be legitimate historical references for eras needed in period piece productions.
Vicki Mink: Protecting Port Hope’s heritage and character is deeply important to me. I have seen how major federal and provincial projects can permanently reshape communities, including the loss of heritage assets, century farms and significant landscapes. That experience informs how I approach growth in Port Hope. We already have strong tools such as designated properties, heritage districts and areas of natural significance. We must ensure these protections are respected and strengthened as development pressures increase. Planning ahead is essential. Clear guiding principles for growth, heritage conservation and development help Council make thoughtful, consistent decisions rather than reacting to individual proposals. This is one reason I continue to support the creation of a Planning Committee. I also value the work of organizations such as Friends of Wesleyville, Hope Agricultural Heritage Centre and ACO Port Hope for their ongoing contributions to education, preservation and advocacy.
Norm Orviss: Port Hope should protect its heritage resources through a comprehensive planning framework that combines rigorous Heritage Impact Assessments, conservation easements, adaptive-reuse policies, and enforceable site-plan controls. Development near designated properties, Heritage Conservation Districts, and cultural heritage landscapes should be carefully reviewed for scale, setbacks, architectural compatibility, and material choices so that new construction complements rather than overwhelms historic places. The Municipality should also safeguard rural and natural landscapes, including farmland, ravines, marshes, forests, and landmark features, through zoning overlays, environmental buffers, and policies that reduce fragmentation and disturbance. Restoration work should follow accepted conservation standards, emphasizing repair before replacement and the use of historically appropriate materials wherever possible. To encourage long-term stewardship, Port Hope should expand grants, tax incentives, technical guidance, and partnerships with property owners, Heritage Port Hope, and conservation professionals, ensuring heritage assets remain active, maintained, and valued parts of the community.
Adam Pearson: Port Hope’s heritage is one of the things that makes our community unique, and protecting it should be considered alongside responsible growth. I believe the Municipality should continue to identify and protect significant heritage buildings, landscapes and natural areas through strong planning policies, Heritage Conservation Districts and appropriate heritage designations. At the same time, preservation cannot simply mean preventing change. We should encourage the restoration and adaptive reuse of heritage properties, making it possible for historic buildings to have useful new lives while maintaining their character. For rural and natural heritage areas, development should respect the existing landscape, including farmland, forests, ravines, waterways and significant cultural landmarks. Most importantly, heritage considerations should be incorporated early in the planning process, rather than becoming an issue after development proposals are already well advanced. Good planning can allow Port Hope to grow while maintaining the character that makes our community special.
We often hear the phrase “demolition by neglect.” It refers to the practice of permitting a property to fall into such a state of disrepair that restoration becomes untenable and demolition of the buildings on the site the only option. It is a strategy often used by developers to allow them to justify the demolition of a heritage building. Despite the adoption of a stronger Property Standards by-law, the Old Hospital at 65 Ward Street is still showing clear signs of demolition by neglect.
Q2: What further steps could the Municipality take to protect vacant heritage buildings such as the Old Hospital from demolition by neglect?
Les Andrews: Council need to react quicker to these structures, utilizing all resources (By Laws, etc.) at our disposal to allow buildings to deteriorate. Unfortunately, 65 Ward Street, in my opinion, is beyond remediation.
Amelia Bray: I recognize that preventing demolition by neglect requires intervention before a building reaches an emergency state. The Municipality should use its Property Standards and heritage tools more actively, with regular inspections and documented maintenance requirements for vacant designated properties. Where owners are not maintaining a building, the Municipality should establish clear timelines for corrective work and pursue available enforcement measures rather than allowing deterioration to continue. For vulnerable properties such as the Old Hospital, I would support a heritage-property action plan identifying the building’s condition, stabilization priorities, restoration costs and and explore grants, partnerships and incentives that make restoration achievable. Most importantly, heritage designation needs to have meaningful consequences. Protecting Port Hope’s heritage means taking action while restoration is still possible—not waiting until demolition becomes the outcome.
Caleb Carisse: Regarding the Old Hospital at 65 Ward Street and similar heritage buildings, I’d push for a vacancy tax and an at-risk heritage registry with mandatory inspection intervals, so problems are documented before they become demolition by neglect. Registries, inspection regimes, and vacancy taxes like this already exist elsewhere in Ontario. Ours would need penalties and thresholds scaled to our own community. If the Municipality steps in to complete repairs itself, that should require the owner’s written agreement to a binding repayment plan secured against the property, not just an added tax-bill line, with terms shaped by the Heritage Advisory Committee’s recommendations and the inspection findings. A modest heritage grant or low-interest loan for exterior repairs is worth exploring too, so compliance isn’t purely a financial barrier.
Claire Holloway Wadhwani: People notice. Anyone who walks past 65 Ward Street can see what is happening, and it is discouraging. Demolition by neglect works because waiting is cheap. Our job is to make waiting expensive. Section 35.3 of the Ontario Heritage Act lets us adopt minimum maintenance standards specific to heritage properties. I would pair that with a vacant building registry carrying escalating fees, and proactive inspection of vacant heritage buildings rather than waiting for a complaint. Enforcement is where councils tend to lose their nerve. The Municipal Act lets the municipality do required work itself and add the cost to the tax roll. That only works if council will authorize it and budget for the legal exposure. I also want to be straight about 65 Ward Street. The Minister’s Zoning Order narrowed our leverage. What we still control is the standard we set, the inspections we do, and whether we follow through.
Miranda Lukaniuk: I would rather see the “owner” held responsible, even when that owner is a government institution. While living in the Netherlands, I experienced a different approach to property ownership and neglect. In Europe, heritage is taken seriously: whether privately or publicly owned, buildings must be maintained, with fines applied for neglect. In some municipalities, long-term vacant properties can even become subject to occupancy rights. I once lived in Fort Pannerden, an abandoned WWI fortress owned by the municipality of Dornburg. It was neglected while restoration grants were pursued. After occupation, the municipality was forced to restore and repurpose it as a museum. Empty buildings hurt the local economy.
Vicki Mink: Buildings should never be allowed to deteriorate to the point where demolition becomes the only practical option. Strong property standards matter, but enforcement becomes far more difficult once major decline has occurred. The Municipality needs a more proactive approach to vacant heritage buildings, including regular monitoring, clear maintenance expectations and early intervention. We should also assess whether our current heritage and property standards tools are adequate, and strengthen them where needed. The situation at 65 Ward Street highlighted the importance of addressing issues early. As many will recall, I raised concerns about the proposed longterm care facility and provincial LTC design standards; it should not take one councillor, years into a project, to identify a fundamental design issue as the only way to preserve a heritage building. Council and staff must work together from the outset to identify challenges, explore alternatives and protect heritage before options narrow.
Norm Orviss: To prevent heritage buildings from deteriorating into “demolition by neglect,” the Municipality should use a more proactive asset-management and enforcement framework. This should include mandatory condition assessments for vacant designated properties, minimum maintenance standards tied to structural stabilization, weatherproofing, security, and fire prevention, and escalating compliance orders where owners fail to act. However, enforcement alone is unlikely to restore complex heritage assets such as the Old Hospital. The Town, Heritage Port Hope, conservation specialists, and the owner should establish a formal adaptive-reuse strategy that identifies viable new uses while retaining character-defining elements, streetscape value, and key architectural features. Tools such as heritage easements, phased restoration agreements, grants, tax incentives, and development approvals linked to conservation outcomes could make rehabilitation financially and technically feasible. The goal should be preservation through planned reuse, not simply penalty-based compliance.
Adam Pearson: The Old Hospital demonstrates why enforcement alone may not always be enough to protect an important heritage property. The Municipality should continue using its Property Standards and heritage tools, while also exploring stronger measures for chronically neglected vacant heritage properties. These could include regular inspections, clear maintenance requirements, timelines for corrective action and meaningful consequences when owners fail to maintain a property. Where appropriate, the Municipality should also work with property owners to identify realistic options for stabilization, restoration and adaptive reuse. I believe there should be a balance between protecting heritage and respecting property ownership. However, allowing a significant heritage building to deteriorate until demolition is the only practical option undermines the purpose of heritage protection. The objective should be to intervene early enough that restoration remains achievable.
The Centre Pier is a huge block of precious waterfront land – bigger than downtown Port Hope. It could be the focus of Port Hope’s future downtown growth, accommodating parklands, private and public development and a unique urban waterfront experience. Yet, little direction seems to have been given to PHAI as to the Pier’s possible future.
Q3A: What is your vision for the Central Pier? What uses or activities do you visualize there?
Q3B: Should the Municipality give stronger guidance to PHAI in order to ensure that Port Hope’s vision for the Pier is realized?
Les Andrews: 3a) I would suggest we erect a second Band Shell, at the southern most portion of the pier. This would help eliminate the noise complaints that we receive. The Centre pier cannot accommodate large scale development. We are restricted to the depth we can excavate to. Cement pads can be poured to accommodate trailers/food trucks/ concession stands. There is some access to water and electricity Pat the northern third of the pier. The pier will have lighted pathways and will be landscaped. Potentially additional recreational facilities could be added, such as pickle board courts and in line skating .
3b) Council has provided input to PHAI and has accepted the plan presented to Council.
Amelia Bray: 3a) I think Port Hope’s waterfront could become one of the most meaningful and transformative pieces of land in our community. After PHAI clean up, the Centre Pier may not be sound enough for building so this idea includes the west side of the harbour on current Cameco land. Cameco has committed to occupying 20% less land through their Vision in Motion program. Imagine a cultural hub made up of:
- A nuclear history and science museum
- A Port Hope archives/history museum
- A freshwater aquarium/great lake education centre. Look at the “Echo Leahy Center for Lake Champlain” in Burlington, VT.
- Restaurants, cafes, shops
- Centre Pier parkland that could be used for markets, festivals, events
- Continuous promenade from waterfront along river to downtown. Done well, this could create jobs, attract visitors, support local businesses, provide new cultural and recreational opportunities for residents and generate economic activity that reaches far beyond the waterfront itself.
3b) The municipality should ensure that the restoration of the Centre Pier leaves it ready to be used by the public, with electric and other services installed, and landscaped to allow the parkland to be used right away.
Caleb Carisse: 3a) My vision: turn the Centre Pier into a multi-functional community asset, not a single-use development. Building on the Waterfront Master Plan’s own supported elements: open green space and a public plaza anchoring an open-air market, festivals, and art installations; a marina echoing the old yacht club; and leased commercial space generating revenue to help cover upkeep, plus a resident-funded installation so residents help build and contribute to it. At its centre, a museum and interpretive trail developed with the Michi Saagiig First Nations, incorporating Indigenous-informed architecture and design elements, reclaimed parts from it’s history, and honouring this harbour: the Ganaraska’s salmon run and the Michi Saagiig’s own history here as “the Salmon People,” the 19th-century fur-trade post and grain-and-lumber shipping harbour that built the town, and its 20th-century nuclear-industry role. Contingent on PHAI’s cleanup and real public consultation
3b) Yes. Right now Port Hope is largely reacting to PHAI’s decisions rather than directing them, and the Centre Pier is exactly what’s at stake if that doesn’t change, shaped by remediation logistics and federal timelines rather than what residents actually want there. I’ve been pushing for Port Hope to have real standing in this relationship, not just a seat at consultation sessions after decisions are already made, plus a genuinely independent citizen committee with real oversight of the cleanup. The Pier should be the concrete test: the community-asset vision above, market, art, marina, commemorative space, becomes a formal municipal position and set of conditions, given to PHAI before major remediation or land-use decisions are finalized, not requested after the fact. Guidance without real standing behind it is just a suggestion; Port Hope needs enough leverage that PHAI has to actually respond to what the Municipality wants for this land.
Claire Holloway Wadhwani: 3a) The pier’s future has always been shaped by what remediation leaves behind. Grading, servicing and the condition of the pier wall determine what can be built, planted or dug there for generations. Those are real constraints, and I would rather work honestly inside them than describe a waterfront we cannot deliver. What I believe we should design for is a mixed-use waterfront that belongs to the public. Parkland and continuous public access along the water. Space for retail and food. Space for seasonal pop-up activities that add to our spring, summer and fall calendars, supporting both resident and tourist enjoyment. A real connection between downtown, the pier and West Beach for people walking and cycling, with naturalized shoreline and stormwater treatment doing actual work.This would make for a pier and shoreline worth visiting year-round.
3b) Yes, and I believe we have. There has been extensive negotiation with PHAI on the pier over recent months. Much of that happened in closed session, so I will not speak to the detail, but I can tell you what I was focused on. Servicing, first. Ensuring adequate servicing to parts of the pier is what keeps some development possible there, and without it the mixed-use waterfront people are asking for cannot be delivered, whatever a future plan says. The constraints created by the pier wall, second. And third, making sure the advice from our planning and parks teams carried real weight in the room, early, rather than arriving after the options had narrowed. As that work is completed, with respect to both constraints and budget choices, more information should be coming forward publicly soon.
Miranda Lukaniuk: 3a) I see historical and educational art pieces built by local artists, a user-friendly walking path and places for people to have picnics. Taking back the space of public land from industry is always eye candy to me.
3b) I am all for any stronger guidance from the municipality to agencies doing work funded by the government. Having experience of my own with the PHAI it was my own responsibility to be informed about the process and negotiate and advocate for myself during the process. The same should go for municipal lands being remediated.
Vicki Mink: I have many ideas for the Centre Pier, inspired by waterfronts in other communities. There are practical constraints, including the harbour walls’ weight-bearing capacity, existing servicing and the need for flood protection. Preserving the sightline from Queen and Walton Streets to Lake Ontario is essential. That view should remain open and unobstructed. I envision a waterfront that reflects Port Hope’s industrial and maritime history, with thoughtfully designed structures that could include cafés, shops and gathering spaces. Because a flood protection berm is required, there is an opportunity for a dual purpose design such as incorporating an amphitheatre or gathering space similar to Prescott’s waterfront. I would also like to see something distinctive for children rather than a standard playground. A climbable ship-themed structure, designed as a landmark and dedicated to the British Home Children who made significant contributions to our rural community, could honour an important and often overlooked part of our local history.
3b) I believe the Municipality should provide clear direction to PHAI, but that direction needs to be grounded in an established community vision rather than shifting with each Council or individual viewpoint. Decisions about the Pier already span many years, and there are significant structural, servicing, environmental and financial constraints that must be considered. At the same time, residents hold a wide range of ideas for its future such as arts and culture, recreation, environmental protection, a working harbour or cost-efficient approaches. Before offering stronger direction, the Municipality needs to clearly define what we want the Pier to achieve and what principles should guide its evolution. Meaningful community engagement, combined with a realistic understanding of the Pier’s limitations, can help create that shared vision. Once that vision is established, Council should set clear expectations for PHAI and ensure the organization works within those parameters.
Norm Orviss: 3a) My vision for the Centre Pier is a mixed-use public waterfront district anchored by accessible parkland, family-oriented recreation, and low-impact marina facilities. The site should be planned through a comprehensive waterfront master plan that addresses shoreline resilience, public realm design, pedestrian and cycling connectivity, universal accessibility, servicing capacity, stormwater management, and compatibility with adjacent harbour operations. I would prioritize flexible open space for picnics, play equipment for multiple age groups, small-scale cultural programming, public washrooms, seating, shade, and waterfront viewing areas. A marina could support tourism and local economic activity if designed with appropriate environmental safeguards, including water-quality protection, habitat enhancement, waste-management controls, and limits on disturbance to the nearshore ecosystem. Any private development should be subordinate to public access, heritage character, and long-term community benefit.
3b) The Municipality should provide stronger strategic direction to PHAI through a formal governance and coordination framework that aligns remediation activities with Port Hope’s approved waterfront vision, land-use objectives, public-realm expectations, and long-term community interests. This should include clear municipal input on site design, phasing, environmental performance standards, transportation impacts, shoreline treatment, future land-use flexibility, and compatibility with Centre Pier redevelopment. The broader cleanup program should also be managed through consistent technical reporting, transparent risk communication, measurable remediation milestones, and regular public engagement so residents understand project status, residual constraints, and next steps. Stronger municipal oversight would help ensure that remediation is not treated only as a technical cleanup exercise, but as an integrated planning, environmental, and community-building process.
Adam Pearson: 3a) I see the Centre Pier as an opportunity to create something distinctive for Port Hope—an active waterfront destination that connects our downtown with Lake Ontario. My vision would include significant public access and public space, with a combination of parkland, recreational opportunities, and gathering spaces. The Pier should be designed for residents as well as visitors. It could provide opportunities for walking, sitting, events, outdoor activities and waterfront experiences that complement the economic development of Port Hope. Any development should be carefully planned so that it respects Port Hope’s heritage character while taking advantage of the Pier’s unique location. I would also want the community meaningfully involved in determining the long-term vision. The size and importance of the site make this a once-in-a-generation planning opportunity. We should take the time to establish a clear vision before individual development decisions determine the character of the entire waterfront.
3b) The Centre Pier is near completion for restoration. I feel we have given very strong guidance to ensure we have a great position for the future of the Centre Pier.
Part 2
Please type either “Agree” or “Disagree” after each of the following 5 statements. A comment of up to 25 words may also be added in the space provided.
1: Preserving trees in Port Hope continues to be a challenge. Yet, our natural heritage, our parks, ravines and urban tree canopy, are major components of our heritage image as a community. Port Hope deserves a much stronger tree protection by-law.
Les Andrews: Agree Strongly. Not only stronger tree protection Bylaws, complemented by additional tree plantings, throughout our community.
Amelia Bray: Agree. The tree canopy is an integral part of storm water runoff management and also keeps the municipality cooler in the summer than comparable communities with no canopy.
Caleb Carisse: Agree. Council’s 2026 tree guiding principles need real teeth, starting with PHAI tree-removal protocols and development approvals, not left as a values statement.
Claire Holloway Wadhwani: Agree. Per our recent council motion, trees are critical infrastructure. Fund timely replacement, as close to like for like as reasonably achievable, with real enforcement.
Miranda Lukaniuk: Agree! If a tree is 100 Years old it is a designated person and only removed if there is proven risk of injury or property damages. All trees are trees.
Vicki Mink: Agree. I served on the Tree Advisory Committee when the by-law was introduced. Our goal was to establish a foundation that could be strengthened over time.
Norm Orviss: Disagree. I believe the current bylaws have the teeth that is required to preserve the tree canopy it just needs to be enforced and adhered to.
Adam Pearson: Agree. Trees, parks, ravines and natural areas are important parts of Port Hope’s heritage and environmental character. Protection should be strengthened while allowing reasonable property maintenance and development.
2: While the single family home remains the gold standard for many people, new development within the urban core should be higher density, more accessible, more affordable, as long as it conforms to heritage standards.
Les Andrews: Agree. The reality is we need to build higher density housing, which means, more housing per average lot.
Amelia Bray: Agree. Well designed, higher density low rise development is more economical to build, offer variety for different demographic needs, lower energy use for residents, less urban sprawl which protects green spaces and farmland
Caleb Carisse: Agree. Especially through ARUs and gentle infill. I’m more cautious on larger multi-storey projects that clash with heritage character.
Claire Holloway Wadhwani: Agree. Heritage standards should shape design, not become a veto on the density and affordability our urban core badly needs.
Miranda Lukaniuk: Agree. In Europe I have seen that property owners have been converting old barns into small homes, and beautiful extensions.
Vicki Mink: Agree. I support greater density, accessibility and affordability in the urban core, provided new development respects and conforms to applicable heritage standards.
Norm Orviss: Agree. Part of the answer to this is what was discussed in question 2 where I referred to building materials to be used I should conform to the area.
Adam Pearson: Agree AND Disagree. I don’t believe we should be over densifying our urban core. Appropriate density can support housing choice and a vibrant downtown. New development should respect existing neighbourhoods and Port Hope’s heritage standards. Accessible and more affordable housing is always something I have, and will continue to advocate for.
3: Council has approved the creation of tiny homes and other additional residential units to increase urban density and gain housing stock. Such units should be in keeping with their existing neighbourhoods, particularly in our Designated Heritage Districts.
Les Andrews: Agree. We can’t ignore height issues when mixing ARU’s with existing structures, many of which are single storey.
Amelia Bray: Agree. I want Port Hope to be a community where people can afford to stay, where seniors can age in place, where families can build equity but also where our historic neighbourhoods remain vibrant and intact for generations to come.
Caleb Carisse: Agree. My own ARU position is deliberately simple, existing structures, excess lot space, which naturally respects heritage-district character.
Claire Holloway Wadhwani: Disagree. These units sit back, small and largely out of sight. My priority is getting them built, including enabling rental income that helps owners maintain heritage homes.
Miranda Lukaniuk: Agree. I don’t understand “in keeping with” but if you mean aesthetically or historically, then yes.
Vicki Mink: Agree. ARUs should be compatible with their neighbourhood. Where a property is within a Designated Heritage District, any development subject to heritage requirements must comply with those standards.
Norm Orviss: Agree. This goes without saying that ARU’s should conform to the neighbourhood and the house it is being built beside.
Adam Pearson: Agree. Additional housing can increase housing options while making better use of existing neighbourhoods. In heritage districts, design should respect the established character and streetscape.
4: The new nuclear generating station may bring massive changes to our western waterfront area. Council should proactively work to protect the natural and cultural heritage of Wesleyville Village and Lakeshore Road.
Les Andrews: Agree. Lakeshore Road should be taken off the negotiation table as a potential east/west route form Port Hope to Wesleyville. High volume and commercial traffic can use the 401.
Amelia Bray: Agree. Natural and heritage assets in Wesleyville should be protected.
Caleb Carisse: Agree. Exactly why I’d have the Heritage and Environmental Advisory Committees assess these lands for cultural heritage value before project decisions lock in outcomes..
Claire Holloway Wadhwani: Agree. I have already raised Wesleyville’s natural and cultural heritage in comments on the Initial Project Description. Protection must be secured early, in writing, not assumed.
Miranda Lukaniuk: Agree.
Vicki Mink: Agree. I joined the Board of Friends of Wesleyville because I believe the village and Lakeshore Road are important parts of Port Hope’s natural and cultural heritage and must be protected, regardless of future development.
Norm Orviss: Agree. We need to embrace the project and have OPG provide the money and project coordinators that will preserve the area of Wesleyville.
Adam Pearson: Agree. Major industrial development can, and typically does, bring change. Port Hope should continue to proactively identify and protect significant natural and cultural heritage resources before those changes occur.
5: There is a strong movement to deregulate the planning approvals process, to permit builders to build more, faster. But Port Hope is a unique heritage community. While we should try to make the approvals process faster and simpler, we should not sacrifice our commitment to heritage protection and good planning in order to improve builders’ expediency.
Les Andrews: Agree. An ACO Advisory Committee could be instrumental in working with Developers and our Planning Department to protect our heritage assets.
Amelia Bray: Agree. Deregulating planning approvals (ie. Special Economic Zone or similar) would be detrimental to Port Hope’s unique character.
Caleb Carisse: Agree. I support pre-approved policies so council can move fast on good opportunities, but never at the cost of heritage protection or accountability.
Claire Holloway Wadhwani: Agree. Our delays are rarely caused by heritage review. Faster, clearer, better resourced approvals and strong heritage protection are not in conflict.
Miranda Lukaniuk: Agree. Heritage is an economic engine for tourism, culture and film.
Vicki Mink: Agree. I brought the provincial legislation proposing changes to planning approvals to Council’s attention and brought forward a motion opposing measures that could weaken local planning and heritage protections.
Norm Orviss: Agree. The Town should adhere to a policy of again matching the building to the area and start that from the planning stages with the builder.
Adam Pearson: Agree. Planning approvals should be efficient and predictable, but speed should never replace good planning. Heritage protection and responsible development should remain fundamental considerations.
Also see: