Tuesday, April 17, 2007

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.

Monday, April 16, 2007

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.

 

Friday, April 13, 2007

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...
 
 
 

Thursday, April 12, 2007

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:
 
 
 
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