This submission is made by the Federation of Tiny Township Shoreline Associations (FoTTSA) which represents the majority of residents’ associations located within the Shoreline Residential Area defined in the Township of Tiny Official Plan. These associations have approximately 2000 household members. The prime purposes stated in the FoTTSA Articles include: “to promote the protection, enhancement and wise use of the environment of the shoreline.” Our members understand, value and are committed to respecting the dynamic beach environment.
FoTTSA has not seen or heard a comprehensive persuasive scientifically sound rationale to justify the Township of Tiny’s plans. Accordingly, FoTTSA is opposed to the Township’s proposal and would urge the Township to withdraw the proposed Dynamic Beach Management (DBM) Bylaw for further consideration. Existing legislation and regulation offer the Township, like other municipalities in Ontario, satisfactory ways and means to ensure environmentally responsible use of its shoreline.
That said, FoTTSA nevertheless wishes to advance some comments and questions related to information provided to the public in this matter. Representatives of the Federation of Tiny Township Shoreline Associations (FoTTSA) attended virtually and in person both the Feb 3 the Feb 4 PIC. We have also reviewed the video recording of the meetings posted on the Township website. In spite of the fact that these PICs were held in the middle of winter when many seasonal shoreline taxpayers are not present in Tiny Township, nor in touch with the actions of Tiny Council and staff, we were impressed by the level of interest in the draft DBM Bylaw demonstrated by the public both in person and online. There was heartfelt concern expressed by many people about the various potential, perhaps unintended, negative impacts of the measures proposed.
Unfortunately, the adopted PIC format meant that there was only a limited amount of time and consequently many questions and comments were not able to be brought forward. Nevertheless, as possible, the public asked considered questions and made constructive comments. The Township did indicate that all questions, including those submitted in writing online during the PIC and subsequently would be answered fully in a timely manner.
During the PICs there were questions such as:
- Why is the Township determined to enact this DBM Bylaw given that there are few, if any, other municipalities that have deemed such measures applied to privately owned properties to be necessary? Many attendees were surprised at the frank admission that even after two years of research the Township is “not aware of what other municipalities are doing at this time.” The Township committed to addressing this significant oversight, presumably in documentation, so that the public may become suitably well-informed.
- What is the unique and significant problem that Tiny is attempting to solve in this manner? What has happened that is so terrible that the Council has directed the expenditure of many thousands of dollars in consultant and staff time to research, draft, re-draft, and otherwise prepare this DBM Bylaw? Is there an actual documented scientific need for a bylaw to address significant current dynamic beach issues in the Township? The public heard staff say that: even though “the Zoning Bylaw already regulates much of what we are talking about” and that “the majority of property owners respect the beach,” it is simply the expressed will of Council to “draw a line in the sand” and through enactment of the DBM Bylaw grant itself a powerful new role in management and regulation of privately owned shoreline property. Is this understanding of the initiative behind the DBM Bylaw, correct?
- Why could not any actual problem that exists be addressed in some other simpler and more efficient way? It was not made clear that the Township has adequately evaluated all possible options. Such options might include the Township having more effective involvement in the various upper tier government permit processes already in place, and/or making suitable amendments to the Zoning Bylaw? Would the Township please clarify whether there was an evaluation of options undertaken, and if so, provide any resulting documentation?
Section 8.2 of the draft DBM Bylaw would, if adopted, confer very considerable discretionary power upon the “Director” who may deny any permit should they be dissatisfied with any one of ten — not at all well-defined — conditions. In the PIC it was stated that the “Director” in question is the Planning Director. In the draft DBM Bylaw Section 2.14 it is stated that the “Director” in question is the Director of Engineering. There seems to be confusion, and/or disagreement, with respect to who will ultimately holds this significant discretionary power. Will the Township clarify the situation and also indicate how DBM Bylaw will ensure that the powers of the “Director” will be exercised fairly and consistently over time and with a good measure of predictability based on available technical standards and guidelines?
In the draft DBM Bylaw, Section 11 Appeals, 11.1 states “Any person applying for a permit shall have such rights of appeal to the Ontario Lands Tribunal in relation to refusal thereof as set out in the Municipal Act, 2001.” The relevant slide presented to the public at the PICs restated that rights of appeal to the OLT would be available. Indeed, during the Feb 3 PIC, the Township asserted that, if a permit was not granted by staff, appeal could be made to Council and if that were unsuccessful final appeal could be made to the OLT “as ingrained in the Municipal Act for certain bylaws.” At the second PIC it was indicated that the draft Bylaw, the slide and the previous night’s statement about appeal rights under the Bylaw were misleading and that appeal rights to the OLT may not be available. The Township indicated that it would seek out some additional input before the public meeting. So, the public is left with the knowledge that the Township has spent years and many thousands of dollars to prepare a Bylaw which has been before a concerned public for more than a month and yet the Township cannot say what the approval and appeal process involves. It follows that the Township cannot say what the process may cost applicants or indeed what it may cost the Township. Will the appeal process necessarily bring the parties to court on a regular basis? Will the Township please fully clarify this vitally important matter?
In response to legitimate concerns raised by the public during the PICs, there were a good many comforting statements made by the Township including:
- The intent is to create a situation where “people feel comfortable coming to the Township.”
- The process going forward will be “leaving a lot of room for review of the process and program for any improvements that can be made along the way.”
- The 45m setback established by the province and referenced in the draft DBM Bylaw refers to a “precautionary area — a yield sign — where there could be an issue, and the Township should proceed with caution.”
- “All we are talking about is the site alteration piece” and “the process will be quite streamlined.”
- Where an applicant requires more than one municipal permit, the permit required under the DBM Bylaw “will be rolled into that other approval… to make it more user friendly and seamless.”
- There will be a “tiered permit system” requiring only the suitable range of information to be prepared and provided with a permit application — “a real scaled approach.”
- “Anything you have existing and are maintaining or replacing will have no issues.” (The several statements made by the Township implied that the detailed provisions for grandfathering outlined the report prepared for Tiny Township jointly by Aqua Solutions 5, Gardiner Roberts and Planning Solutions in Section 4.0 New Provisions A. Setbacks from Georgian Bay would all apply to the proposed DBM Bylaw.)
- The current thinking is that “septic systems have their own permit system and will be exempt from the DBM Bylaw except as it relates to the cover on the tile bed.”
It would be fair and accurate to observe that none of these seemingly comforting statements are reflected in the draft DBM Bylaw tabled at the Committee of the Whole in December. Indeed, the language of the draft is opaque, the tone is aggressive, the conditions are highly restrictive, and any indication of reasonableness and flexibility is absent. There is no mention of a streamlined or tiered approach. There is no mention of exemptions. There is no mention of an ongoing refinement process. There is no mention of grandfathering of existing structures. Accordingly, the public hopes and expects that, if the Township chooses to actually proceed with a new DBM Bylaw, the next draft of the Bylaw will be significantly different in order that the indications provided during the two PICs are clearly set out in the document and that the public can thus be assured that the Township has adopted a collaborative flexible approach.
Given that the second draft of the proposed DBM Bylaw may be significantly different than the draft that was tabled in December, in all fairness, the public should be afforded a reasonably generous period of time to review and consider the revised draft and to prepare deputations and submissions. FoTTSA believes that a considerable amount of further meaningful consultation with the public is essential should the Township intend to continue to advance this Bylaw. Will the Township please ensure that all documentation is made available to the public at least 20 days in advance of the statutory public meeting scheduled for March 31? Will Tiny commit to, and outline a process for, further meaningful public consultation?
At the February 6, 2025 meeting of the FoTTSA Dynamic Beach Management Bylaw Committee, the following motion was passed:
In attendance: Paul Cowley, Robert McBride, Kelly Whittaker, Andrew Chomentowski and Tara Marshall
Motion by P. Cowley, seconded by K. Whittaker, that the above assessment be sent to Council following the February Dynamic Beach Management Bylaw PICS. Motion CARRIED 5-0.