The property in question. The image, from the Staff Report, shows the laneway in question looking west from Southampton Street.
Jane Glenn | 21 August 2026
Saugeen Shores Council has refused a request to use part of a Town-owned laneway between two Port Elgin properties, with several councillors saying the municipality must protect public land and avoid setting a precedent that could bring a wave of similar applications.
The owners of 440 Green Street, Charles and Jody Perkins had sought an encroachment agreement that would allow them to fence and use approximately 200 square metres of the east-west laneway between Southampton Street and Bruce Street, to create a larger private yard between two properties, both of which are owned by the Perkins’.
In a delegation to Council on July 6, Jody Perkins argued public passage isn’t currently possible. "The lane isn’t a continuous, functioning throughway,” she said, adding that parts are already closed, overgrown or affected by other private uses.
Perkins showed an image of the Shamrock apartment building at 616 Waterloo Street, saying it was “contributing to unauthorized encroachment... by using part of the lane as a private parking lot for tenants.” She said that portion of the lane has no agreement with the Town and is “a potential liability concern.”
Perkins also asked Council to consider consistency and showed images of landscaping features such as large rocks on public property intended to prevent people from parking, stating there were “a few recent encroachments on Shipley Avenue and McKinnon Lane that have no agreement." She said there were many more currently and in the past with no agreement.”
Overgrown vegetation also prevents the lane from working as a public lane, Perkins said, because it can block the width of the laneway and force pedestrians onto private property. “The proposed fence wouldn’t interrupt an existing functional throughway,” she told Council.
Perkins wanted to highlight that her family had followed the proper application process, including paying $3000 for survey and application costs and were willing to “pay the same square metre encroachment cost as the lakefront.” She concluded that the lane is “already fragmented, comparable encroachments exist, utility access can be maintained and requests should be considered consistently.”
In their report to Council, Town staff recommended denying the request, saying the application did not demonstrate a compelling need because the primary purpose was to increase private yard space. Staff said approval would restrict public access to municipally owned land and could affect future maintenance, servicing or access needs.
However, some councillors noted that they had already approved a two-year review of laneways, including ownership issues, demarcation, and maintenance scheduling.
Councillor Cheryl Grace agreed, saying it would be unwise to enter into a 15-year encroachment agreement before the Town’s policy work and laneway study are complete. She said she understood the applicants’ frustration when they see existing encroachments and feel the situation is not fair given the condition of the lane and the existing encroachments nearby. Others said consistency and preservation of public land must come first, especially while the municipality is studying its laneway network.
Councillor John Divinski questioned whether the Town should either maintain the laneway as usable public land or make a decision about its future. “As I see it, we either clear this entire laneway so that it’s usable for everybody from one end to the other,” he said. “If we do not do that then there’s no use for the laneway as I see it.”
Councillor Dave Myette said he believed there was “a compelling case to be made that this encroachment is appropriate in this condition, in this circumstance.” He said each encroachment should be looked at distinctly, adding the lane is “clearly not passable” and that “trees have been allowed to grow” while parking and other uses already exist on the laneway.
But other councillors warned approval could set a precedent.
Councillor Bud Halpin asked staff how many more encroachment requests might follow if Council approved this one. Staff replied that the Town is seeing “an uptick” in encroachment and easement requests coming forward more often.
Halpin said that was reason enough to draw a line. “If we go ahead with this encroachment we will be swamped with more encroachments,” he said. “Denying this right now is the right thing to do and we need to continue the good work the Town is doing to maintain control of our laneways and our beach accesses.”
Deputy Mayor Diane Huber also supported the staff recommendation, saying public property cannot be treated as surplus simply because a section appears small or underused. “Public property means something,” she said. “It’s not something to just give away or something to stop up. It requires thoughtful consideration before we make adjustments.”
Huber said the laneway may be “a little tiny piece of a network,” but it remains part of a broader public system.
Councillor Myette said he would no longer support the recommendation to deny the request, saying he believed “encroachment needs to be dealt with case-by-case.”
Vice Deputy Mayor Mike Myatt also changed his position, saying after listening to the discussion, it made sense to wait for the report and that consistency should be expected.
Council voted to approve the staff recommendation to deny the request.
“I am not going to be quick in any way to just give up public land,” Huber said. “We’ve initiated a study, let’s see this study through.”
