Romulus council hears objections, refers Buckingham Manor alley vacation to DPW for investigation

Romulus City Council met Sept. 22 in a special public hearing to consider a petition to vacate a north–south alley in the Buckingham Manor subdivision; council members did not vote on vacating the alley and instead directed staff to investigate.

The petition was presented by Thomas Maycock, the petitioner, who said he sought the alley vacation after discovering the alley was not vacated while attempting to obtain a building inspection and installing a fence. City Attorney (unnamed) told the council that, if the council vacates the alley, the property lines generally “default to the center line of what is the existing alley,” which would change where fences sit relative to neighbors’ property.

The discussion focused on three principal concerns: (1) whether existing fences encroach past the alley centerline and would become trespassing on neighbors’ lots after a vacation, (2) an existing sanitary sewer line that the Department of Public Works (DPW) asked to protect with a utility easement, and (3) individual residents’ access to yards and existing improvements.

Resident Doreesh Green said the petitioner’s fence extends about four feet farther west than adjacent fences, has obstructed his ability to move his boat through the alley, and he displayed photos to council. Green said the petitioner’s excavator ran over a culvert and that the drain below became clogged after the work. “I can’t put my boat out,” Green said, describing how the fence location blocks his intended use of the alley access.

Several other residents described confusion about what signing the petition meant, concern about losing fence investments, and longstanding problems with dumping and security behind properties. Jean Price, who said she has lived at 6005 Essex Street for 20 years, said she signed the petition after the petitioner explained the plan and after speaking to city staff: “I signed the petition,” she told the council, and asked whether she would be required to move her fence.

Council members and staff clarified technical points during the hearing. A speaker referring to the plat map said the alley is platted at 20 feet and therefore the center line would be 10 feet from each side, not 9 feet as earlier discussed. Council members noted DPW had requested a 20‑foot utility easement in the alley to protect the sanitary sewer that runs the length of the alley if vacated. The clerk told council that, if they defer action, DPW and the building department would be given two weeks to investigate and return with a report at the next regular meeting.

Council did take two procedural votes unrelated to the alley vacation itself: it approved the public hearing agenda (motion by Councilman Krauss, supported by Councilwoman Abdo; unanimous roll call) and later approved adjournment (motion by Councilman Wadsworth, supported by Councilwoman Roscoe; unanimous roll call). On the alley item, council members repeatedly expressed that, given the conflicting accounts and residents’ concerns, it was appropriate to have DPW and building staff survey the site, confirm the plated alley width and centerline, identify any encroachments, and clarify what, if any, actions property owners must take before the council considers vacating the alley.

The council directed staff to return with a report so members and affected residents would have clearer information before a formal vote on vacation occurs.