DATE: Friday, March 7, 1997                 TAG: 9703070663

SECTION: LOCAL                   PAGE: B1   EDITION: NORTH CAROLINA 

SOURCE: JEFFREY S. HAMPTON, CORRESPONDENT 

DATELINE: ELIZABETH CITY                    LENGTH:   84 lines

ALLEY CLOSINGS PIT NEIGHBORS AGAINST EACH OTHER, COUNCIL

Petitions to close alleys in two of Elizabeth City's older districts have residents riled with each other and one council member at odds with her neighbors.

More disputes may arise as the city attempts to close several other alleys.

Some residents want alleys behind their houses closed to keep out unwanted traffic. Some want them open for access to the back of their homes. Though public battles have so far been limited to appeals before City Council, in private, neighbors buzz about each other's audacity.

``At times traffic is unbelievable,'' said one resident about an alley that passes by her house. She did not want to be identified.

``Often it's the worst between 11 and 2 at night.

``Those people,'' she said referring to a nearby family, ``are just using the alley as a private driveway.''

At another alley, a man complains that his neighbor has already taken over more than half of the alley with an addition to her house.

``It was a power move,'' the man said. ``You know Southern women. They get moving, and they get what they want.''

That axiom didn't hold true for Councilwoman Myrtle Rivers. Complaints came fast and quick when she petitioned to close an alley behind her home on the corner of Magnolia Street and Highland Drive. She voted on the early stages even though she stood to gain 5 1/2 feet along a 100-foot line.

When the city closes an alley, adjacent property owners each get half.

The City Council voted Monday to nullify the petition since Rivers' involvement was a conflict of interest. Rivers quietly withdrew from the discussion while her neighbors and their lawyer watched from the audience.

If the alley had closed, Thomas Reid would have lost to Rivers an area he had used as a driveway for 30 years. Reid lives next door to Rivers. He hired attorney William T. Davis to represent his case before the council.

``He's been using the property under the belief that it was his,'' Davis said Thursday morning. ``His title has been ripened by virtue of the doctrine of adverse possession.''

That doctrine says that if a person has used a piece of property for more than 20 years, with the public aware of it and no one disputing it, then the person owns the property, Davis said.

Rivers declined comment.

The alley has already been used by residents as private property for years. Trees and bushes make the alley blend into the landscape. Davis has a petition from all but three of the neighbors to keep the alley as it is.

``It has certainly split this neighborhood,'' Davis said. ``People are upset because they want to maintain the status quo.''

In earlier action Monday, the council voted to close an alley off Shirley Street and another off Griffin Street. Both run between houses that face Church and Baxter streets. Years ago, they were a single alley.

One side of the alley is a well-kept drive that ends on the east side of Edward Munden's property. The other is indistinguishable, taken over by trees, bushes and buildings. It ends on the west side of Munden's property.

Munden owns a lot with a house on Church Street and another adjacent lot that fronts Baxter Street. He had absorbed the part of the alley that passed between the two lots.

Munden wanted the east alley left open for a driveway. He briefly pled his case to the council Monday, but made no protests after the council abruptly and unanimously closed the alley. He could not be reached for comment.

``I favored closing it,'' said J.C. Erickson of Church Street. ``In this day and age, you don't need people walking behind your house.''

Erickson reflects the feelings of most of his neighbors, he said. Several residents in the area were present at the council meeting in support for closing the alley.

City Manager Steven Harrell said the city will pursue closing more alleys in the older districts that meet three requirements:

There are no water or sewer lines in the alley.

Closing the alley will not inhibit ingress and egress.

They are no longer true alleys and have been annexed into the adjacent properties.

``I didn't give them a time frame, but it's something they're working on,'' Harrell said. ``I have no idea how many there are.''

The city wants to close the alleys to rid itself of the maintenance costs and the liabilities.

Though there have been no lawsuits, ``We have to fix mudholes on a regular basis.''

Every landowner affected by an alley closure gets notification of a public hearing. The city must advertise the public hearing.

Decades ago, the alleys were used by trucks to clean out septic systems and pick up trash. City sewerage and trash collection eliminated the need.

``There's a good number of them that can be closed without disturbing the public,'' Harrell said.

Send Suggestions or Comments to webmaster@scholar.lib.vt.edu