Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Access Revocation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Riverview staff to notify Dawnshire residents their license to use city land will be revoked
Summary
City staff told the mayor and council they will send letters revoking long‑standing permission for some Dawnshire residents to use city property after repeated damage, fires and safety concerns.
Riverview city staff told the mayor and council they will send letters to Dawnshire residents revoking a decades‑old permission to use open city land after inspections found property damage, discarded items and recent fires that burned city trees.
City Clerk Shane Harrison reminded the council this week that the city has provided written permission, subject to termination, for nearby residents to use a strip of city land since 1993. City staff reported that items stored on the city land — including ladders, lawnmowers, fire rings and other personal property — have been repeatedly removed by city crews and that recent fires have caused tree damage.
Council members were told the city attorney drafted a letter that would revoke and terminate the permission and require removal of residents’ property and restoration of any damage to city property. Staff said they would also likely post no‑trespassing signs and monitor the area.
City staff described past cleanup efforts that included collecting two to three pickup‑truck loads of items from the site and said there had been at least one arrest for hunting on the property. Staff estimated the number of addresses affected along the fence line as roughly 20, though the draft revocation targets a smaller set of addresses where misuse was documented.
Officials noted the fence in question was installed around 1993 and sits about 40 feet inside the city property line, and that some residents had installed gates or otherwise expanded access. Staff also said the area is maintained periodically by DTE for power‑line trimming, and that trimming crews sometimes require access through the same corridor.
At the council meeting, staff sought and received consensus to send the revocation letters. The council did not vote on an ordinance or adopt a new policy; staff described the action as sending revocation notices prepared by the city attorney and taking associated property‑management steps.
Staff indicated the revocation is intended to address liability and public‑safety concerns and to stop ongoing misuse of city property. The council did not set a date for enforcement actions beyond the planned mailing of the letters.
