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