Just Another Balm Beach Sunrise

 

Unbelievable!

Notwithstanding that the whole issue of fences was raised for discussion because of the erection of the fence at Balm Beach; and

notwithstanding that a consultant was hired as a result of early discussions; and

notwithstanding that the consultant recommended that regulations be put in place regarding fences on the beach; and

notwithstanding that four of the five council members stated during the election campaign that they were against fences on the beach; and

notwithstanding that many objections to fencing on the beach were raised at the August public meeting; and

notwithstanding that PUBB and many others have requested that fences not be permitted on the beach; and

notwithstanding that fences on the beach are contrary to the goals and objectives of the Official Plan; and

notwithstanding that the Official Plan does not include boundary fences as permitted structures on the beach,

 

on Tuesday, council discussed the proposed amendments to the Zoning Bylaw regarding fences and although fences on the beach were discussed, in the end, nothing about the beach was included in the accepted recommendations.  Further discussion was deferred until the Official Plan review sometime next year.  Council found it too hard to come up with wording of a bylaw and now it seems that they are hoping that the new Official Plan will not require a bylaw to deal with this.

 

UNBELIEVABLE!!

 

We still have much work to do.

 

Georgian Bay, Just another sunset

Had Too, Just Had Too

Jill & Roger, "K" & Jack

The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:
2

Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments.  Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled.

Provincial Election Update

The following are the responses to PUBB's questions from the Liberal Candidate Laura Domsy.

 

 

Thank you for your questions and thank you for meeting with me.

 

Your question #1 is: "What is your position on keeping Tiny's beaches open for public access and use?

 

I am in favour of keeping our beaches public. One of the major attractions to our lovely area is our natural resources. I realize the beaches economic importance and the importance to our lifestyle in Simcoe North. If elected I will work diligently to set up a meeting with your group and the Attorney General. Beyond that I would be interested in meeting with your group again and gaining more facts. At that point I would consider bringing forward a private member’s bill that would raise the important issue of public access to our beaches. Unlike my Conservative opponent who feels that politicizing this and other issues, I feel that we should work constructively together to get a resolution. I will make sure your voice is heard no matter, which party, forms the government.

 

Your question #2 is: "Would you support the Great Lakes Shoreline Right of Passage Act if it is re-introduced in the next legislature"?

 

I agree with the Great Lakes Shoreline Right of Passage Act in principle. As I mentioned to you, I spoke with Mr. Craitor’s office and he intends to bring this Act forward again when the legislature resumes. My only concern with the bill is the lack of details pertaining to compensation for private property expropriation. If expropriation of private property occurs than I think it is important for the government to fairly compensate the property owner. I understand that this bill as it is written now is not exactly what you are looking for but I feel this is a good first step in the right direction. Anytime there is an opportunity for me to include you in consultations regarding this and other bills of the same topic I’ll seek your input. I feel that this is the representation that we need at Queen’s Park.

 

Thanks, Laura Domsy

Provincial Election Update

Candidates Meetings

 

PUBB met with the Liberal Party Candidate - Laura Domsy - for a couple of hours on Thursday evening.  We had a chance to outline our problems and concerns regarding fences on the beach and what role we feel the provincial government should play in resolving the issue.  Ms. Domsy did not take any position on the issue but did listen carfully.

 

A meeting has been set up with Garfield Dunlop on the morning of Oct 6. 

 

 

Responses to Questions

 

The following is a response to PUBB's questions from Garfield Dunlop.  Written responses have not yet been received from the other candidates.  These will be posted if and when received.

 

Thank you for your questions regarding the use of public beaches.

Your question #1 is: "What is your position on keeping Tiny's beaches open for public access and use?

My answer: I am in favour. That is precisely why I encouraged former PC Attorney General Jim Flaherty to appoint a mediation company, Global Resolutions, to work with all stakeholders to seek a fair and responsible solution to the public access and use issue. I knew it would be a difficult task and would take years to complete. Since the Liberal Attorney General pulled the plug on the process, nothing has been done.

Your question #2 is: "Would you support the Great Lakes Shoreline Right of Passage Act if it is re-introduced in the next legislature".

My answer: As you are aware, the Great Lakes Shoreline Right of Passage Act received only first reading in the legislature last year. Because Dalton McGuinty adjourned the legislature a full four weeks ahead fo the parliamentary calendar because of the controversy surrounding his Slushgate Minister Mike Calle. Mr Calle was to appear before the Standing Committee on Estimates when McGuinty adjourned the house. Over 100 Private Member's Bills, such as the Great Lakes Shoreline Right of Passage Act died on the order paper.

In the current form presented by Mr. Craitor, I find that the Act is very vague and it certainly does not consider issues around private properties such as compensation, liabilities and destruction due to vandalism of public and private property. I look forward to the Bill being re-introduced and would look forward to Standing Committee hearings being held even in communities like Wasaga Beach and Midland and Penetanguishene.

Obviously we would want 'full' public input and be open to amendments.

Whoever wins this election, it would be very positive to see the issue resolved in a fair and responsible manner that respects the rights of property owners while at the same time allowing access to the beautiful beaches of our Great Lakes.

Sincerely,

Garfield Dunlop

A Glimmer of Hope

Today at the Committee of the Whole meeting, council decided that it would dust off the now long forgotten Balm Beach Master Plan and relook at it.  They stressed the need for community input as an important part of this process.  In itself, this does not get rid of the fence, but it is a good step in the right direction.  I will offer PUBB's cooperation.

 

Provincial Election

The following questions are being sent to the candidates of Simcoe North.  However, all provincial candidates should be aware of the issue since public use of the shores of our Great Lakes is a matter that affects recreation throughout the province and even though their ridings may not have shorelines, many of their constituents use them.  PUBB encourages you to make your candidates aware of the problem and solicit their position on the matter. 

 

As an incentive to do this, you will be interested to know that as this email is being written, it appears that the Balm Beach fence is being extended down towards the water's edge.

 

Questions for Provincial Candidates.

 

 

Issue:  The access and use of the beaches along the west shore of Tiny Township has been a matter of some controversy for a good number of years.  Increasingly, beaches that have been historically used by the public (which includes not only local residents but visitors from other parts of the province and the world who are seasonal residents or visitors) are being privatized and in some cases, public access is being denied through intimidation and/or fences or other barriers.

 

 

What is your position on keeping Tiny’s beaches open for public access and use.

 

Would you support the Great Lakes Shorelines Right of Passage Act if it was reintroduced in the next Legislature?

 

 

PUBB Letter to the Editor Following Beach Article

 

Dear Editor

 

I congratulate Douglas Hunter for his article on the diminishing access to the beaches of Tiny Township. 

 

We agree with Mr. Hunter regarding the need for the provincial government to protect the public’s right to use the shorelines of our province.  It is the role of the Attorney General to be the “guardian of the public interest” and it says so within the first few lines on the Ministry’s web site.  A local group known as Preserving the Use of Balm Beach (PUBB) has repeatedly asked his office to exercise its mandate but the only advice they give is to “get a lawyer”.  The public should not need a lawyer to defend its rights, that is the job of the Attorney General.

 

Although we appreciate their efforts in trying to engage the Attorney General, the municipality can do more.  Tiny Township council has the power to prevent fences from being built on the beaches. 

 

This was a major topic at a public meeting held on August 11 and a deputation to council by PUBB on August 13.  In its deputation, PUBB listed six reasons why a there should be a bylaw that prevents fences from being built on the beach, not the least of which is to conform with the intent, purpose and specific provisions of the Official Plan.

 

We hope that council will fulfill their part in keeping our beaches barrier free.

 

Article on the Beach Problem in Midland Free Press

In the Friday August 17 issue of the Midland Free Press, Douglas Hunter wrote a good article describing why the province should get involved in guaranteeing public access to our beaches.

 

For the next week it will be available at www.midlandfreepress.com  and follow the links   Inside Today/Editorial>Death, Taxes and Tiny beaches.

PUBB Deputation to Council

 

On Monday, August 13, Doug Lorriman presented a deputation to the Tiny Township Council Committe of the Whole.  The presentation was based on the open letter to council posted earlier on this Blog but also included some discussion on items raised since the writing of the letter.  Items such as beach stewardship stemming from a recent conference regarding caring for our beaches and points raised at the Public Meeting on fencing issues held on August 11.

 

The council chambers were filled with interested parties, most of whom strongly supported the message to urge council to pass regulations to restrict the further placing of fences or other obstructions on our beaches.

 

The conclusion of the presentation follows:

 

Council should take action to restrict the placing of fences and other permanently placed items on the beach:

 

• To follow through on statements made during the election campaign
• To act on the recommendation in the Consultant’s Report
• To provide access for service and emergency vehicles
• To practice good stewardship of our valuable non-renewable resource
• To prevent major problems if and when the water levels should rise again.
• To uphold the intent, purpose and provisions of the Official Plan

 

Each one important in itself but together a very compelling case, we hope you will agree.

PUBB CORN ROAST

Date:        Saturday, August 25

Time:        Noon to late afternoon

Place:       The parkette at Balm Beach

 

Come and enjoy this community event.

 

Hot Dogs

Corn on the Cob

Cold Drinks

 

Donations to PUBB will be accepted.

PUBB Deputation to Council

PUBB will make a 15 minute presentation to Tiny Township Council on August 13 ato 1:15 pm.  Plan to attend and show your support.

 

Public Meeting Regarding Fences

The Township of Tiny will be holding a public meeting to discuss the proposed bylaw changes regarding fences. 

 

The meeting will be held on Saturday, August 11 at 10:00 am at the Wyebridge Community Centre.

 

Currently, the proposed bylaw changes do not include any mention of restricting the erection of fences on the beaches.

 

We urge you to attend and let council know that you do not want to see fences on the beaches and that you want to see a bylaw which includes this restriction. 

 

This is your chance to be heard.

 

Further information can be found by going to www.tiny.ca/whats-new/public-notices and then hit the link for Notice of Public Hearing - Fences.

 

 

 

OPEN LETTER TO THE COUNCIL OF TINY TOWNSHIP

During your discussion about fencing regulations at the Committee of the Whole meeting on May 28, you seemed very reluctant to include a discussion about restricting the erection of fences on the beaches and, in the end, you simply let the matter drop by rejecting the only recommendation regarding beach fencing that was contained in the staff report you were considering.  Agreed that the recommendation was incomplete and may not have been a satisfactory resolution, but there was no attempt by council to find an alternative solution.

 

This action, or more accurately, inaction, is disturbing and confusing given the following context:

 

Election Statements

 

During the election campaign, four of you stated, in one way or another, that you did not wish to see fences on our beaches.  The quotes are:

 

Mayor  Breckenridge - “In general I support the maintenance of our environment in its natural state.”

 

Deputy Mayor Lawrence -  “I strongly oppose any obstruction on/in the beach swimming area that has been traditionally used by Tiny’s Cottagers/Residents in a responsible manner!”

 

Councillor Cornell - “In principle I don't want to see the natural beauty of our beaches changed by the addition of fences or other objects.”

 

Councillor Claire – “Like many residents of the Township, one of the reasons my wife and I decided to retire here is the beauty of the shoreline.  I do not think that anybody would like to see this exceptional landscape altered by rows and rows of fences to the water edge.”

 

For the four above, here was an excellent opportunity to make sure that no more fences would be erected and yet you did nothing, not even properly debate the matter. 

 

 

Some of you qualified your statements noting the need for fences or other structures in certain circumstances. 

 

PUBB and others agree that these qualifications have merit and we are sure that certain exceptions could be addressed but no attempt was made to do this. 

 

 

Consultant’s Report

 

Some of you, including Councillor Warren, noted that a consultant’s report was being prepared and wished to see what the consultant had to say and to consider other input as well.

 

 

Well, the consultant’s report is in and here are some excerpts:

               

                “This review has been initiated to respond to the issues raised as a result of the erection of a fence onto a beach in the Balm Beach area.”

 

                “However, in the case of the Township of Tiny, the issue with respect to fencing has only arose in a very specific context and location – the area along an interior side lot line that is perpendicular to and which extends to the water’s edge.”

 

                “…as a result, it is my opinion that there is a public interest in regulating fences in this particular circumstance if only to ensure that there is a set of rules and/or process in place to deal with a fencing issue in areas which are the subject of a series of unique constraints and circumstances.  On this basis, it is recommended that rules be considered to deal with this particular circumstance only.” [Note: underlining was inserted by the consultant]

 

The consultant’s report was initiated because of fencing on the beach, and in spite of noting some technical challenges, the consultant recommended that this matter be considered yet you still did not address it.

 

PUBB and others have submitted additional and what we believe to be well considered input but this was never referenced in the council discussions.

 

 

Related Decision by Council

 

Just a few months ago, this same council rejected a wind farm proposal based on recommendations from a staff report which, among other things, quotes from the Official Plan:

 

"the challenge of the future planning of the community is to ensure that the change that does occur enhances or maintains the quality of life now enjoyed by the township's residents.  This will be accomplished by promoting the stewardship of the Township's resources in a way that has the greatest positive impact on the quality of life for present and future generations....residents identify the excellent quality of life that makes the Township a desirable place to live." 

 

The staff report went on to say that

 

"the intrusion of the built forms being proposed would potentially have a very significant impact on our vistas and change the very character that is what makes Tiny Township so unique.  The Georgian Bay shoreline, and the very significant environment features are critical and should take precedence ..."

 

The council motion of rejection stated that

 

“the current position of this Municipality is that it does not support the location of wind power generation facilities….anywhere within the Municipality, as these types of projects do not comply with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.”

 

The same reasoning can easily apply equally to the issue of fences on the beaches but no attempt was made to be consistent in this vision.

 

 

The Official Plan

 

Taking the previous point further, the Official Plan (the cover of which boasts pictures of uninterrupted stretches of beach) states that

 

the vision for the future of the municipality is based on a series of planning principles that are intended to:

                Protect the natural environment

                Conserve the Township’s natural resources

                Protect the character of the developed and undeveloped areas

                Direct growth and settlement to appropriate locations; and

                Encouraged appropriate economic development

                [underlining is that of the writers]

 

The Official Plan highlights the shoreline in section B 2.3.5 (part of Environmental Protection Zone 2) saying

 

“the shoreline of Georgian Bay is a significant geographical feature in the Township that is well known for its natural beauty.  …  It is a policy of this Plan that all land use decisions affecting the shoreline respect the character, natural beauty and ecological integrity of the shoreline.”

 

Clearly, fences on the beach significantly affect the character and natural beauty and arguably the ecological integrity of the shoreline. 

 

But the Official Plan gets more specific. 

 

“With the exception of structures essential for boating purposes or structural works required for flood and/or erosion or sedimentation control, no building or structure shall be located adjacent to the shore of Georgian Bay of Lake Huron unless sited inland from the flood hazard limit based on the 100 year flood level.”

 

By not regulating fences on the beaches, yet knowing that fences are being and may continue to be built, council is not only allowing activity which, like wind farms, does not comply with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan but is not enforcing a specific provision of the Plan.

 

 

We ask that council reconsider once again regulating fences on the beaches in order to:

 

                Follow through on election campaign positions

                Follow the recommendation of the consultant

                Consider additional input which has been provided

                Follow and consistently apply the intent and provisions of the Official Plan.

 

We look forward to your response to this letter.

 

 

Respectfully submitted.

 

 

PUBB – Preserving the Use of Balm Beach

 

Tentative Date Set for Public Meeting on Fence Bylaw Changes

 

Tiny Council has tentatively set Saturday, August 11, 10:00 am at the Wybridge Community Centre as the time and place for the publice meeting to consider the proposed changes to the Zoning Bylaws to deal with fencing matters.  As posted earlier, the current proposals do not contain anything related to fences on the beach so we need a good show of support to get the issue back on the table.

 

 

Beach Fencing Issue Sent into Coma by Council

 

On Monday May 28, the Tiny Township council addressed the issue of fencing resulting from the consultant's report presented earlier and the staff report that followed it.  The staff report contained a number of recommendations mostly dealing with some technical issues and only one dealing with restricting fences on the beaches.  The beach recommendation required further discussion by council in order to complete.

 

The following is a summary of the council deliberations:

 

The Mayor introduced a new beach definition but the lack of clarity concerned staff. - no further discussion

 

George Lawrence reiterated his points of the last meeting (fences prevent access of emergency and maintenance vehicles) but did not press them. - no further discussion

 

Andre Claire did not participate in the discussion of the beach.

 

Nigel Warren raised some issues contained in a submission from Mr. Musial which suggested that restricting fences on the beach would be contrary to the provincial Line Fences Act.  Staff pointed out the the act was not relevant in this matter.

 

George Cornell did not think there was a problem - no further discussion or challenge

 

Nigel Warren wanted any regulation universally applied throughout the township. - agreed by George Lawrence, no further discussion and no challenge regarding the unique nature of the beaches and the consultant's comments.

 

In the end, the rejection of the only staff recommendation that dealt with the beach made the whole issue just seem to die without notice; notwithstanding that it was the reason for discussing fences in the first place.

 

It truly seemed as though council was "afraid" to deal with the beaches even though all councillors, during the election, specifically said that they opposed fences on the beaches and/or wanted to wait for the consultant's report which was being prepared at the time.  The consultant's report ultimately said that there was merit in addressing the beach issue as a special circumstance as long as some of the technical challenges could be overcome. 

 

PUBB suggested a number of times that a committee be formed to address these issues.  This suggestion was again put in writing to council and attached to the staff report.  The suggestion was not addressed at the meeting. 

 

 

So what to do now.

 

We must make council aware that there really is a problem.  Everyone should write to council regarding their concerns.  This can be done by sending an email to council@tiny.ca.

 

There will be a public meeting regarding the other proposed changes to the bylaw.  Everyone should attend this meeting to help ensure that "no fences on the beach" gets back on the agenda.

 

Further details will be posted on this site as they become available.

Council to Consider Fencing Regulations

The subject of fencing regulations is scheduled to be on the council aganda on Monday May 28.  Please let council know that you want no fences permitted on the beaches.  You can reach all council members at council@tiny.ca.

 

 

Doug Lorriman

Namirrol Ltd.

 

Postal Address:

20 Tiny Beaches Rd. N.

Site 8, Comp. 8

Perkinsfield, ON

Canada  L0L 2J0

 

Courier Address:

20 Tiny Beaches Rd. N.

Perkinsfield, ON

Canada  L0L 2J0

 

Phone:     705-361-1973

Fax:         705-361-2218

Email:      douglorriman@rogers.com

 

PUBB in "Tiny Ties"

Check out the newly published May issue of Tiny Ties.  A letter to the editor highlights PUBB's activities.  We are happy to get our message out to the newspapers distribution of 9,000 households.

 

 

PUBB Support from Save the Beaches

PUBB continues to acknowledge the support it has received from Save the Beaches.  Although PUBB's activities are primarily focussed on Balm Beach, we are also interested in matters pertaining to other shoreline areas in Tiny.  If you wish to get the broader picture, be sure to visit their website at www.savethebeaches.ca.

 

 

 

 

Tiny Council Considers Fencing Regulations

Following the consultant's report on fencing matters which was presented in January, Tiny staff prepared a staff report for council to consider.  The report can be found by taking the following path:

http://www.township.tiny.on.ca/      COUNCIL AGENDA    COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA - 2007    CWC 08 April 30, 2007    Complete CWC Agenda >>F STAFF REPORTS TO COUNCIL    2 Planning and Development >> Planning Report PD 25-07 Re: Zoning Amendment/Fences   Among other things, the report suggests a formula for restricting the length of fences stretching towards the water on waterfront properties.  The discussion by council at the Committee of the Whole meeting on April 30 touched on many of the topics covered in the report but no conclusions were reached.  Council is looking for more discussion.  The matter was deferred until the last meeting in May.   We urge PUBB supporters to write members of council, express your concerns and urge them to enact fencing restrictions on the beach.  All council members can be reached with one email to council@tiny.ca   It should be noted that any bylaw amendment will not cause the removal of the existing fence but it will restrict further fences.

 

 

Thank You Roger

 

Effective as of April 12, Roger Neal has resigned from the core group of PUBB.  Roger has been a tireless worker and we thank him for all of his efforts.  He remains a committed supporter of PUBB's objectives but now wishes to direct his energies towards important business and personal matters.

Column in Sun

An article about beach access issues by Sun columnist Christina Blizzard was printed on Sunday April 15.  If you did not catch it in the paper, you can read it by going to the following address.

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Blizzard_Christina/2007/04/15/4023636-sun.html.

 

Right of Passage Act

If you wish to read the recently introduced Great Lakes Shoreline Right of Passage Act, go to www.ontla.on.ca and take the following path:

 

Home  >  Bills & Lawmaking > Current Parliament > Bill 202, Great Lakes Shoreline Right of Passage A...

 

 

 

Right of Passage Act

On April 10, Mr. Kim Craitor, the MPP for Niagara Falls introduced to the Ontario Legislature a private members bill entitled Great Lakes Shoreline Right of Passage Act, 2007.  The Act if passed, would restore the rights of everyone to walk on the Great Lakes shores between the water's edge and the high water mark.  It also calls for the removal of all impediments that would restrict such passage.  The Act does not preclude other rights which may exist on certain sections of the shores.

 

As it appears in Hansard;

 

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

GREAT LAKES SHORELINE RIGHT OF PASSAGE ACT, 2007 /
LOI DE 2007 SUR LE DROIT DE PASSAGE SUR LE LITTORAL DES GRANDS LACS

Mr. Craitor moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 202, An Act to create a right of passage along the shoreline of the Great Lakes / Projet de loi 202, Loi créant un droit de passage le long du littoral des Grands Lacs.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

The member may wish to make a brief statement.

Mr. Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): This afternoon I take great pleasure in introducing a private member’s bill that will benefit all the people of Ontario who enjoy the natural beauty of Ontario Great Lakes and bays.

Entitled the Great Lakes Shoreline Right of Passage Act, 2007, this bill when passed will reserve a right of passage along the shorelines of the Great Lakes between the shoreline and the high-water mark. These rights will be limited to passage on foot and are designed to return to Ontario the right Ontarians have always had under British common law: the right to walk on the beautiful beaches of our province.

I also want to add that this bill will not harm any existing rights, property values or personal security, and it will protect adjacent landowners from frivolous liability prosecutions. In fact, it will reaffirm existing littoral and riparian rights, enhance property value by eliminating ambiguity, and, as in other jurisdictions, the presence of people will deter crime and vandalism.

It is time to return the shorelines and the beaches to the citizens of Ontario. I would ask the House to support this bill.

 

 

Prior to the Act being introduced in the house, a press conference was held where Mr. Craitor, Shorewalk Ontario, Shorewalk Cobourg and PUBB/Save the Beaches presented remarks in support of the bill.  It was noted by Mr. Craitor that a letter supporting the Act had been received from the mayor of Cobourg and that the Fort Erie town council had unanimously supported the bill.

 

We urge all PUBB supporters to send messages to their MPP's and ask them to support the bill.

 

 

The press conference remarks made on behalf of PUBB and Save the Beaches follow:

 

I WOULD LIKE TO PREFACE MY REMARKS BY RECOGNIZING THE EFFORTS OF THE ONTARIO SHOREWALK ASSOCIATION FOR RAISING THE PROFILE OF THIS ISSUE AND TO THANK BOTH THEM AND KIM CRAITOR FOR INCLUDING OUR GROUPS IN THIS PRESS CONFERENCE.

 

MY NAME IS DOUG LORRIMAN.  I AM THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE GROUP DEDICATED TO “PRESERVING THE USE OF BALM BEACH” (PUBB).

 

PUBB’S PRIME GOAL IS TO HAVE FENCES, WHICH WERE ERECTED LAST YEAR ON THE BEACH, REMOVED AND TO RESTORE THE HISTORIC PUBLIC USE OF THE BEACH.

 

WE HAVE OVER 700 SUPPORTERS, MANY OF WHOM HAVE USED THE BEACH FOR DECADES.

 

I AM ALSO SPEAKING TODAY ON BEHALF OF “SAVE THE BEACHES”, AN ORGANIZATION WITH CLOSE TO 4000 MEMBERS, WHICH HAS A BROADER MISSION TO ENSURE THAT ALL OF THE BEACH SHORELINE IN TINY TOWNSHIP IS AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC USE.

 

PUBB AND SAVE THE BEACHES SUPPORT THE GREAT LAKES SHORELINE RIGHT TO PASSAGE ACT.  IT CALLS FOR THE REMOVAL OF ALL RESTRICTIONS ON THE BEACH, WHICH WE UNDERSTAND WOULD INCLUDE THE FENCES AT BALM BEACH, AND IT REPRESENTS A GOOD STEP TOWARDS OUR ULTIMATE GOAL OF RESTORATION OF FULL USE.

 

BALM BEACH IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH EASTERN SHORES OF GEORGIAN BAY.  IT IS PART OF A BEACH NETWORK WHICH RUNS FROM WASAGA BEACH IN THE SOUTH TO CEDAR POINT IN THE NORTH, MOST OF IT BEING LOCATED IN THE TOWNSHIP OF TINY. 

 

THERE ARE THOSE WHO CLAIM THAT THIS STRETCH OF BEACH IS THE LONGEST FRESHWATER BEACH IN THE WORLD.  LONGEST OR NOT, IT IS CLEARLY ONE OF ONTARIO’S KEY NATURAL ATTRACTIONS.

 

BALM BEACH IS ONE OF THE MORE POPULAR SECTIONS OF THIS SHORELINE, SECOND ONLY TO WASAGA BEACH.

 

FOR MANY YEARS, FROM THE TIME THAT THE FIRST COTTAGERS STARTED COMING TO THE BEACHES OF TINY TOWNSHIP, THE PUBLIC ENJOYED THE BEACHES AND ALL OF THE ASSOCIATED RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES.

 

UNTIL RECENTLY, MUCH OF THE BEACH WAS ZONED AS PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AND PUBLIC AGENCIES, BOTH PROVINCIAL AND MUNICIPAL, MANAGED AND MAINTAINED SECTIONS OF IT.

 

IN THE MORE RECENT PAST, THE TWO LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT HAVE PULLED BACK FROM STEWARDSHIP AND, IN THIS VACUUM, PRIVATE INTERESTS HAVE MOVED TO PRIVATIZE MANY AREAS OF THE BEACH.

 

AN INCREASING NUMBER OF SHORELINE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE APPLYING THROUGH A PROVINCIAL PROCESS TO HAVE THEIR PROPERTY BOUNDARIES EXTENDED ACROSS THE BEACH TO THE WATER’S EDGE.  SOME HAVE FOUGHT FOR PRIVATIZATION THROUGH THE COURTS.

 

THESE ACTIONS HAVE OFTEN BEEN FOLLOWED UP BY RESTRICTING PUBLIC ACCESS AND USE OF THOSE BEACH AREAS WITH OBSTRUCTIONS, SIGNS, HARRASSMENT AND, AS IS THE CASE AT BALM BEACH, EVEN FENCES.

 

WE FEEL THIS IS WRONG ON MANY LEVELS AND ARE FIGHTING TO HAVE IT STOPPED AND REVERSED.

 

THE OTHER DAY I WATCHED A SEGMENT ON TV WHICH CELEBRATED THE WONDERS OF THE ENDLESS BEACHES OF THE FLORIDA COASTLINE.

 

THE MOST POIGNIANT VISUALS OF THIS SEGMENT WERE THE PICTURES ALONG THE BEACHES WHICH SHOWED THE UNINTERRUPTED BEACH EXTENDING AS FAR AS THE EYE COULD SEE AND PEOPLE ON THE BEACH ENJOYING THE SUN, THE SAND AND THE WATER.

 

THESE BEACHES ARE SUCH AN ATTRACTION THAT MANY TOURISTS FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD, INCLUDING A LARGE CONTINGENT OF ONTARIONS, TRAVEL THOUSANDS OF MILES AND PAY THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS EACH YEAR TO VISIT THEM.

 

THIS NATURAL OF TREASURE FLORIDA, AND INDEED THAT OF MANY OTHER PARTS OF THE UNITED STATES, INLCUDING CERTAIN GREAT LAKES SHORES, RETAIN THEIR FUNCTION AND BEAUTY PARTLY THOUGH THE EFFORTS OF POLITIANS WHO HAD THE VISION TO SEE VALUE OF THE BEACHES AS RESOURCES TO BE ENJOYED BY ALL.

 

WE CONGRATULATE MR. CRAITOR FOR INTRODUCING THIS VISION THROUGH THE GREAT LAKES SHORELINE RIGHT OF PASSAGE ACT AND WE HOPE THAT ALL OF HIS COLLEAGUES, REGARDLESS OF POLITICAL PERSUATION, WILL SHARE THE VISION AND ACT ON IT.  ESTABLISHING THE RIGHT OF PASSAGE ACT AS LAW WILL BE A PROUD LEGACY OF THIS LEGISLATURE.

 

 

 

Ontario Shorewalk Association

PUBB has recently become aware of and associated with the Ontario Shorewalk Association.  This group was formed in Fort Erie where problems with shoreline access are similar to those in Balm Beach.  They have become very active and have contacted other groups accross the province to coordinate efforts to have the province address the issue.  For PUBB, the discovery of the Shorewalk group was good news and bad news.  The good news is that we are not alone, there are others in the province who share our concerns.  This means a larger voice at Queen's Park.  The bad news is that there are other groups in the province who have the same problems.  The public is restricted from shoreline access in a growing number of areas.  Shorewalk has identified groups on Lakes Erie, Ontario, Huron and Georgian Bay (us).

 

PUBB will be meeting with shorewalk and the other groups over the next few months to plan strategy.

 

We encourage you to visit their web site at www.shorewalk.ca, learn about what they are doing and become a free non-voting member of the association.

 

 

 

 

Council Receives Report on Fencing Regulation from Consultant

As a result of initiatives by PUBB and others, the last township council commissioned its consultants to prepare a report on fencing requlation in the township.  Although the request was sparked by the erection of the fence at Balm Beach, the consultant was asked to address all fencing issues.

 

The report was presented to council at the Committee of the Whole meeting on Feb 12.  The report generally concludes that there is no general need for fencing regulation in the township but there is a case to address the issue of fencing on the beach.  Some options to do this are discussed.

 

The council had a brief discussion, accepted the report and passed it on to staff for review.  We understand that the staff report will be presented in late April or early May.

 

If you would like to read the consultant's report, go to www.township.tiny.on.ca,  and take the following path:

COUNCIL AGENDA    COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA - 2007    CWC 03 February 12, 2007    Complete CWC Agenda    D REPORTS OF CONSULTANTS OR THIRD PARTIES Listing

 

 

 

PUBB made the following written submission to council based on the report and the discussion:

 

 

 

Thank you for putting the issue of fencing on the agenda early in your term and receiving the consultants report.  We feel that the report is very well done and covers many of the issues relating to fencing in general and specifically in this township.  We agree with the consultant on the following points:

 

• That fencing in general does not seem to be a problem in this township.
• That fencing on the beaches does present a problem and could be dealt with as a distinct issue.

 

We would like to add the following input based on the report, the ensuing questions and discussion and PUBB’s previous submission to the fencing regulation process:

 

Preserving the Natural Character

 

A point about the beauty of wide expanses of uninterrupted beach in other countries was raised by council.  The term “character” was used.  Matters of access and ownership aside, we believe that this is a good term which captures an essence of the issue.  It was noted that thousands of people, including many of us, travel many miles and spend a great deal of money to experience these beaches, enjoy the vista of the uninterrupted sandy shoreline, the recreational use and the long walks in the sand and the surf.  The existence of these beaches is partly the result of the vision of politicians who saw the value in preserving these areas.

 

It would be nice if the province or federal government would do the same in this country but they have not and for now, it is left up to us.  Council has the means to protect the Tiny shoreline and leave a lasting legacy for future generations.

 

The Niagara Escarpment is a good local example of regulations put in place to preserve the character of a unique natural landscape.  Private landowners who live in the escarpment area are very restricted in what they can do in order to achieve this.  Granted this is a provincial initiative since the escarpment passes through many jurisdictions but the same reasoning can be employed in this township.

 

Not Just Fences

 

The report only dealt with fences as conventionally defined.  We believe that no objects which are more or less permanent should be allowed to be placed on the beach.

 

Discrimination

 

During the discussion following the consultant’s presentation, the issue of discrimination was raised.  We may have misunderstood the context of the comment but in our view, discrimination is an inherent feature of most bylaws, especially zoning bylaws.  Residents living in or near certain defined areas have to comply with certain specific restrictions relating to those areas.  Again, a good example would be the Niagara Escarpment discussed above.

 

178 Metre Elevation

 

This concept is already embodied in the zoning bylaws of the township so is not new with the fencing issue.

 

We were not aware that there are some properties where this elevation line goes through or behind buildings.  If there are many lots where this applies, then further discussion is clearly needed.  If there are only a few, then perhaps these can be addressed on a case by case basis as suggested by the consultant.

 

We agree that some survey work would be necessary if this elevation was used to define the permitted extent of a fence; however:

• it is likely that some survey work would have to be done anyway to define the line of the fence and,
• only two points would have to be identified (the end of the fence on either side of the property) and this is relatively easy with current technology.

Dynamic Beach

 

We understand that all of the shoreline of the Township is classified as “dynamic” as originally defined by the Ministry of Natural Resources and incorporated in the Township of Tiny Zoning Bylaw 06-001.  Arguably there may be some shoreline areas which do not fit the definition but clearly, most, if not all, of the shoreline south of the southern tip of Christian Island falls within the scope of the term.  The very use of the word “dynamic” shows an understanding that the sands and rocks along these shores are constantly moving as a result of the action of the wind and waves.  The placement of fences, barriers or other obstructions on the beach would clearly impact this dynamism and possibly be harmful to the special beach environment.  For example, the placement of an obstruction could cause the scouring and/or drifting of sand which may have a negative impact on the surrounding beach, both in terms of human use and natural processes.

 

 

Rising Water

 

Recent Boundaries Act decisions are recognizing that the western lot line of many waterfront properties is the water’s edge. It is well known that the water levels of Georgian Bay rise and fall on a daily, seasonal and annual basis.  This means that the location of this boundary line is constantly moving.  Although the water levels are currently at the lower end of their cycle, there is no reason to believe that they will not rise again to test or even exceed their historical highs. If a landowner was to erect a fence to a point below the high water line (now essentially defined as the 178 metre elevation) and the water rose such that part of the fence then extended into the water, then this fence would be situated on land (water?) that was not part of the property at that point in time.  What happens then? 

 

This would also make it difficult, if not impossible, for people to walk along the shore, in the water, past this property, something which they would be entitled to do and we believe is outside all of the current debates about access and use.

 

Furthermore, if fences were extended to at or near the water’s edge, and the water levels rose, the fences would be subject to damage from wind, waves and ice.  In such an event, our shores could become littered with fence debris, a very undesirable outcome for many reasons.

 

View

 

View has never been a top issue with PUBB and we understand that a landowner’s view is not an inherent right.  The issue is vista - the ability for everyone to enjoy a clear and unobstructed vista up and down the beach.  This goes back to the discussion of preserving the character.

 

Proof of Ownership

 

We hope that the previous arguments are sufficient to convince council that there is a need to prevent fences being erected on the beach.  But we further feel that, under no circumstances, should anyone be permitted by the township to fence in land for which they have not obtained legal clear title.  In the case of the fence at Balm Beach, the landowner received a favourable Boundaries Act decision but, to our knowledge, has never followed the procedures required to obtain clear title.  By erecting the fence, clear title has been established physically but not legally.  We feel this is wrong.

 

 

PUBB would be happy to participate in any further discussions with council and/or staff and other interested parties to discuss issues and concerns.

 

Respectfull submitted and behalf of PUBB