Shoreline Bylaw 25-040

The proposed Dynamic Beach Bylaw is over-reaching by suggesting a broad in-land swath of control for 45m from the 178m high water mark. Tiny has already approved many subdivisions and cottages/homes with a 15m setback with existing permit controls. A change of this magnitude would place unentitled control to Tiny over properties purchased or generationally acquired, limiting maintenance, renovations and upgrades. No form of government should allow for free and clear titles to properties and then claw-back with unreasonable limitations. This proposed bylaw punishes the waterfront taxpayers and harms the economy of Tiny, limiting the renovations and upgrades that drive the business of local contractors and trades people. I feel that the existing OS zoning and building restrictions relating to OS and OS1 are sufficient to protect the beach areas used for our enjoyment and recreation.

No, I do not support Shoreline By-law 25-040. It is a severe regulatory overreach that places an unfair bureaucratic and financial burden directly onto property owners, and it requires major amendments. Here is why I oppose the by-law in its current form: Massive Cost to Taxpayers: Implementing this by-law suite has already cost taxpayers roughly $500,000 when factoring in external consulting contracts, legal fees, and township staff hours—funds that could have been far better spent on core municipal infrastructure. Flawed "Dynamic Beach" Blanket Classification: The township has applied a sweeping assumption that our entire Georgian Bay shoreline constitutes a "dynamic beach." Anyone who lives along our coast knows that is simply not the reality. The entire shoreline is not dynamic, and it is fundamentally wrong to force individual homeowners to spend thousands of dollars hiring private coastal engineers just to prove to township hall what is already obvious on the ground. If the municipality wants to assert dynamic beach hazards, the burden of proof belongs on the township, not on the ratepayer. 45-Metre (147-Foot) Setback Overreach: Expanding the setback buffer to 45 metres (147 feet) from the 178-metre contour elevation is excessive and ignores the built reality of Tiny’s established shoreline lots. As I have clearly stated throughout my campaign, I advocate for restoring a practical, balanced 15-metre setback. A Bureaucratic Rubber Stamp: If you review recent Committee of Adjustment proceedings, residents requesting minor variances of 6, 9, or 12 metres are routinely approved anyway—but only after being forced to endure months of delays and spend tens of thousands of dollars on specialized coastal engineering studies. Creating an overly restrictive framework just to make residents pay through the nose for variances is not good planning; it is red tape. We need practical shoreline stewardship grounded in real-world facts, common sense, and respect for private property rights—not costly, top-heavy municipal overreach. Kind regards, Karen Zulynik Candidate for Deputy Mayor, Tiny Township

I believe the 45-Metre setback from the 178-metre contour elevation is an unfair requirement and should be left at the 15 - Metre level.