Romulus council hears objections to Buckingham Manor alley vacation, refers matter to public works

The Romulus City Council on Sept. 22 heard competing testimony over a petition to vacate a north–south alley in the Buckingham Manor subdivision and directed the Department of Public Works to investigate before taking final action.

Petitioner Thomas Maycock told the council he installed a fence and circulated a signature petition to support vacating the alley after a city inspector told him the alley had not been vacated. City staff materials included an alley-vacation report and input from relevant departments; no department formally objected, though the Department of Public Works requested a 20-foot utility easement to retain access to a sanitary sewer line that runs the length of the alley.

Neighbors raised several objections at the hearing. Resident Darice Green of 6065 Essex Street presented photographs and said Maycock’s fence extends about four feet farther west than adjacent fences and encroaches on the easement, preventing her from moving a boat through the alley. Green also alleged that when Maycock brought an excavator onto the property it ran over a culvert and “smashed the drain,” leaving the lower culvert plugged, standing water and a mosquito problem. “He ran over that culvert and therefore smashed the drain,” Green said during public comment.

In response, petitioner Thomas Maycock and another resident said fences have been common in the block and that some properties were dilapidated, with one commenter, Earl Miller, describing the adjacent lot as full of junk and saying a fence improved the appearance. Several residents, including Suzanne Gastowitz and Jean Price, said they had signed petitions expecting cleanup and said they did not fully understand what vacating the alley would require.

City Attorney told council members that if the council vacates an alley and a fence currently extends past the alley’s center line, that fence “would be trespassing on the neighbor behind them’s property now,” because property lines default to the alley’s center upon vacation. The attorney and staff also discussed whether the alley is 18 or 20 feet wide; the plat map in the packet indicated 20 feet, which makes the center line 10 feet from each property. The DPW’s request for a utility easement was said to preserve city access to the sanitary sewer line even if the alley is vacated.

Council members said the factual disagreements and community confusion warranted a field inspection and clearer information for homeowners before any vote. Councilwoman Abdo and others asked DPW to investigate and recommended that staff place the alley vacation item on the next regular meeting agenda after a two-week review so council can act with a DPW and building-department report in hand.

No final decision on the alley vacation was taken at the special hearing. The clerk advised that council members who prefer to postpone take a motion at the regular meeting so staff can provide the requested report. The council adjourned at 6:26 p.m.; its next meeting was scheduled to begin at 6:45 p.m.

The council’s immediate procedural actions at the Sept. 22 special meeting included adopting the hearing agenda by roll-call vote and adjourning by roll-call vote; the substantive alley-vacation request was referred to DPW for inspection and follow-up at a later meeting.