Where Land Meets Bay: TinyTRA Voices on the Dynamic Shoreline Bylaw

What is a shoreline? Is it a fixed boundary where the land ends and the bay begins—or a constantly shifting meeting place where earth and water shape one another in unending motion? In considering Tiny’s proposed dynamic beaches bylaw, our community found itself caught in similar tension: between permanence and change, between protection and access. TinyTRA received a number of responses on the issue, and while views were divided, two stood out for their clarity and conviction. We share them here—opposing in position but united in thoughtfulness—for your consideration ahead of the public meeting on May 6th.

Pro:
Thank you for the effort to collect all views regarding a complicated and I assume somewhat divisive issue in helping shape TinyTRA thoughts/position before proceeding to council.

My family has owned our property in Tiny, on Kitching Lane at Balm Beach for about 100 years, so clearly I am a committed resident.

While I have some concerns with the current council, I do applaud their work on the recent septage solution and especially the by-law protecting dynamic beaches.

Clearly I am very supportive of this by-law.

My feeling is that the building of permanent structures should be kept back from the high water mark, and the 15 meter suggested is not incredibly prohibitive except on very small WF lots, in which case building coverage, septic installation realities should be managed. The one exception I might propose is; consider on an individual basis, allowance of retaining walls (parallel to shoreline) at or above the HWM, if deemed required for protecting fundamental property services (i.e. wells, water lines etc.), and if design uses materials and processes approved by MNR.

Any other structures (boathouses, bunkies, boathouses, ramps, rails) should be prohibited as well as bay dredging and rock movement. I have seen the water levels rise and fall greatly numerous times over the years, with the levels in 2019 enough reason to suggest these structures interfere with dynamic beaches when water levels are at their highest. In addition, I think walking access should be preserved and the aesthetics of the beach maintained below HWM. I would hate to see boathouses, fences, docks and boat launch structures crossing over the beach.

I would like to add an issue. I think with the recent condo development underway in Wasaga beach resulting in a smaller main public beach, we should be pushing for more control of public parking in the Tiny area. Greater enforcement on weekends, limit spaces to what the community can manage, ban private property owners from allowing space rentals etc. I truly believe this will become a real increasing issue as former Wasaga day trippers search for new commercial public beaches. In addition it will further heighten the tension between BL and WF owners, as my experience has been WF owners have no issue with respectful, Tiny loving people they know sitting in front of their property, but add in an explosion of day trippers and all hell blows up.

Thank you, Adam White [emphasis in terms of bold text provided by author]

Con:
Good afternoon,

It's good to know Tiny TRA's interest in the proposed bylaw implications and is considering a deputation this upcoming March 31/25 meet. I appreciate the opportunity to provide some observations/thoughts shared by many of our neighbours. Inevitably there are a variety of opinions, particularly if one is a waterfront owner or an inland resident. Regardless, we all have to be concerned how this bylaw and the implementation affects our future budgets, township personnel increases, fairness for all, timeline increases for projects, and more.

The majority of the present Council campaigned to open all beaches to the public, but soon after election, reality set in. When the Balm Beach boat house became the "egregious event", the council members saw an opportunity to control the beaches under the guise of shoreline protection. If indeed, it is about shoreline protection, then the largest abusers, Tiny Township itself and the increasing multitude of beach goer activities, would not be exempt. In any case, the setback guidelines would be acceptable if starting out in a pristine shoreline, but much of the shoreline is developed and many lots are even less than 200ft deep and would be subject to a permit for even the simplest upkeep, such as sand removal from the front door - draconian.

If one needs a permit to plant or remove a tree/shrub 45 metres inland from the 178 contour line, but not beyond, brings into question if indeed the environment is a priority, but more about access, even tho it isn't supposed to be about access.

Waterfront property owners are vigilant environmentalists and to do otherwise, would work against their best interests. There are already zoning and permits in place for any activity, particularly if flooding vulnerability is present. Perhaps strengthen where there are updates needed?

Often "passage" along the shoreline is mentioned, but what has this to do with the environment? There is no such thing as a "right of passage", particularly with fluctuating lake levels. Of course, there is no mention how one can delineate private property from public, further indicating the true intent of the bylaw. Yes, there are private properties along the shoreline.

It has also been stated that Tiny Township is the first one to consider the implementation of such a bylaw, but apparently not so. S. Bruce Peninsula Beach has similar, but the bylaw is unenforceable on private property. Inevitably it would be same here in Tiny and this conflict has to date not been addressed. Tiny is mostly "private" and "public - township" owned shoreline, with the exception of crown owned land Awenda Park. Since township properties are exempt, then the bylaw would only apply to private property and thereby inevitably enforcement on Tiny private properties will also be questionable. Does the budget provide for all the lawsuits coming their way if the bylaw is passed?

There are activists who refuse to acknowledge the private/public beach dispute was settled by the Rowntree court decision. Let's not waste time and money on unenforceable bylaws. Some like to accuse Fottsa for present beach conflicts, but they have nothing to do with the problems. Perhaps the Council best present facts rather than play political games and spend time and money on an ineffective bylaw that will be struck down sooner than later.,

This Council has shown financial irresponsibility and has shut down public participation, but one must not give up on requesting answers and holding our elected officials, even our administrative staff, accountable.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input and hopefully it helps in the presentation.

Please keep us updated.

Best, [name withheld]

The public meeting on this bylaw, originally scheduled during the recent ice storm, has been postponed to May 6th. This extension has given our community more time to reflect. TinyTRA’s deputation will aim not to stake out a final position, but to surface the key unknowns and tensions revealed in the responses we received. We hope to engage Council in addressing these questions so that, together, we can shape a more informed and inclusive path forward on behalf of the broader community.

Public Planning Meeting Regarding Tiny's Dynamic Beaches and Shoreline
May 6, 2025-5:00 p.m. @Township of Tiny Council Chambers, 130 Balm Beach Road West