A local trucking company’s legal efforts to stop Oxford Village from prohibiting large trucks from using W. Burdick St. failed last week in Oakland County Circuit Court.
Chief Judge Nanci J. Grant denied an emergency motion filed by TKMS trucking seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against the municipality to halt enforcement of the truck ordinance and allow TKMS to use W. Burdick St. for one hour a day, Monday through Saturday, subject to a set of restrictions.
‘The village is pleased that a court would uphold its right to enact ordinances (and) is pleased that the court would respect the local jurisdiction’s right to, by ordinance, manage heavy truckload traffic through its community,? said village attorney Bob Davis.
‘The village is always interested in positive solutions, but at this juncture, we just haven’t heard any positive solutions for this issue aside from the ordinance.?
Steven Wright, the Shelby Township attorney who represented TKMS, did not return phone calls seeking comment.
Although the emergency motion was denied, TKMS still has a lawsuit pending against the village over the truck ordinance.
In October 2014, the village enacted an ordinance amendment prohibiting trucks weighing more than 40,000 pounds ? gross weight including cargo ? from using W. Burdick St. at any time. An exception exists for local deliveries to residences and businesses in the village.
The ordinance was prompted by resident complaints concerning excessive noise and vibration caused by large trucks, public safety concerns and a desire to extend the life-span of a portion of W. Burdick St. for which the village paid approximately $450,000 to reconstruct last year.
TKMS, which has a facility located at 425 S. Glaspie St., previously voiced opposition to this ordinance because it prevents its trucks from using the street.
TKMS trucks haul construction and aggregate materials including sand, gravel and dirt. When empty, the trucks weigh roughly 50,000 to 60,000 pounds, according to the company. When fully loaded, they weigh approximately 154,000 pounds.
In its motion, TKMS claimed that because W. Burdick St. is closed to their trucks, there’s a ‘considerable flow? of its vehicles ‘spilling over? to alternate routes, creating ‘an immediate and substantial danger to the public.?
To illustrate its point, TKMS pointed to an accident that occurred on March 19 in Oxford Township. The accident happened around 5:36 a.m. at the turnaround just north of the intersection of Oakwood Rd. and Lapeer Rd. (M-24).
‘This accident involved a driver whose vehicle collided with a TKMS truck due to a blind intersection on the Oakwood route,? the motion stated. ‘It is anticipated that TKMS will be involved in a subsequent lawsuit by the allegedly injured driver as a result of this accident.?
The motion further stated, ‘Oakwood Road poses a danger and risk of injury due to the high potential of truck accidents because it presents a blind intersection where TKMS trucks have to cross M-24 to get onto Oakwood itself, making it highly difficult for TKMS trucks to negotiate this intersection.?
‘The judge didn’t buy into that,? Davis said.
That’s because based on the Oakland County Sheriff’s report, the accident was the fault of the TKMS driver, not the route.
It involved a TKMS truck driven by a 36-year-old Oxford man and 2011 Ford Focus driven by a 57-year-old Mayville woman. The TKMS driver was making a left-turn from the northbound to the southbound side of Lapeer Rd. in order to head west onto Oakwood Rd.
According to the sheriff’s report, the TKMS driver stated ‘he thought he had enough time to get across Lapeer Rd.? and ‘he almost made it across before being struck by (the southbound Focus) from the rear.?
The report stated the TKMS driver ‘failed to yield? to the Focus, ‘causing a collision.?
As a result, the TKMS driver was ticketed for failing to yield to oncoming traffic that had the right of way.
‘The police report clearly shows the accident was caused by the bad judgment of the TKMS truck driver,? stated the village’s response to the TKMS motion.
As for TKMS? repeated characterization of the turnaround located just north of M-24 and Oakwood Rd. as a ‘blind intersection,? Sheriff’s Lt. Scott Patterson, commander of the Oxford Township substation, said that’s not accurate.
‘It’s wide open,? he said. ‘I don’t think when you drive that route there’s anything there that would block your view to make it (meet) the definition of a blind intersection.?
‘It’s never been an issue in the past,? Patterson added. ‘We’ve never had anything in the past where anybody’s ever complained about their vision being obstructed.?
In the lieutenant’s opinion, calling it a blind intersection is ‘just making excuses for the fact that the (TKMS) driver made a bad call.?
‘He admits it in the report,? Patterson said. ‘You thought you could get through, but you didn’t.?
In addition to the facts surrounding the accident, Davis believes the judge wasn’t pleased the TKMS motion misrepresented its Oxford facility’s location.
According to the motion, the facility ‘is located directly adjacent to W. Burdick St.? and ‘TKMS uses W. Burdick St. as its exclusive truck route for all truck hauling operations to and from its Oxford facility and onto surrounding highways.?
In reality, the TKMS facility is east of M-24, not west, and it’s located at 425 S. Glaspie St., south of E. Burdick St.
‘The judge called them out,? Davis said. ‘We all reviewed a map together during the hearing . . . She was a little miffed about that. The case kind of got her attention when she thought that their property spilled out onto W. Burdick and (the village was) saying you can’t use W. Burdick.?
Davis pointed out that when TKMS trucks leave the facility, they can turn right or left on S. Glaspie St. and end up on roads they’re allowed to travel. If they turn left, they are permitted to use either Lakeville Rd. or E. Burdick St., the latter of which leads to M-24 where they can head north or south, he said. If they turn right, they can access M-24 via Drahner Rd. or continue on Drahner, if they wish, to Baldwin Rd., Davis noted.
In the brief he penned as a response to the TKMS? motion, Davis noted when part of W. Burdick St. was closed for construction last year between June 11 and July 30, which was ‘during the peak of the trucking season,? TKMS and other companies used alternate routes ‘without incident and without the need for ’emergency? judicial relief.?
?(TKMS) ? and other impacted trucking companies ‘were able to safely and fully operate on alternate roads during the road closing,? the village brief stated. ‘The trucking industry (has) found and used alternate routes since October 15, 2014 (when the W. Burdick St. truck prohibition went into effect).?
‘No other trucking company has complained,? the brief continued. ‘No other municipality has complained. No other trucking company has filed suit. The trucks impacted by the ordinance amendment have adjusted to using the myriad of alternative routes.?
According to the village’s brief, ‘there are 14 available alternative trucking routes on roads designated to be suitable for this type of trucking traffic.? A list of these routes is contained in the shaded box below.
TKMS disagrees.
In the motion, the trucking company contended that other than M-24 to I-75, ‘the only truck routes effectively available? absent W. Burdick St. are W. Drahner, Oakwood and Dunlap roads, none of which are acceptable.
‘TKMS? use of the alternate truck routes poses significant and substantial danger and risk of injury to the public due to the high potential for truck accidents,? the motion stated. ‘The alternate truck routes are dangerous because these roadways are not designed to handle or endure excessive loads or larger vehicles (narrow dirt roads are bumpy and curvy) and/or pose significantly treacherous blind intersections which endanger TKMS trucks and other drivers on the road.?
‘Based on information and belief, it is only a matter of time before another serious accident occurs involving TKMS trucks traversing these alternate truck routes,? the motion stated.

Alternate truck routes proposed by Oxford Village
Northbound alternatives
? M-24 n/b to Oakwood Rd, then Oakwood Rd. w/b to M-15, then north to I-69 or w/b on Grange Hall Rd to I-75.
? M-24 n/b to I-69.
? M-24 n/b to Pratt Rd. Pratt w/b (turns into Hill Rd.) to M-15.
? M-24 n/b to Dunlap. Dunlap w/b to Seymour Lk Rd.
Southbound alternatives
? M-24 s/b to Drahner. w/b to Baldwin Rd.
‘M-24 s/b to Indianwood Rd. Then Indianwood w/b to Baldwin Rd.
? M-24 s/b to Clarkston Rd. Clarkston Rd. w/b to: a) Joslyn Rd. s/b on Joslyn to I-75; b) Baldwin Rd North or South; c) Baldwin Rd. South to I-75
? M-24 s/b to Clarkston Rd. Clarkston Rd. w/b to Sashabaw Rd. Sashabaw s/b to I-75
? M-24 s/b to Waldon Rd. Waldon w/b to Joslyn Rd. Joslyn Rd. s/b to I-75
? M-24 s/b to Waldon Rd. Waldon w/b to Giddings Rd. Giddings s/b to Brown Rd. Brown Rd w/b to Joslyn Rd. Joslyn Rd. s/b to I-75.
? M-24 s/b to Silverbell Rd. Giddings Rd. Giddings Rd. w/b to Brown Rd. Brown Rd. w/b to Joslyn Rd. Joslyn Rd. s/b to I-75.
? M-24 s/b to Brown Rd. Brown Rd. w/b to Joslyn Rd. Joslyn Rd. s/b to I-75
? M-24 s/b to Harmon Rd. Harmon Rd. w/b to Joslyn Rd. Joslyn Rd. s/b to I-75
? M-24 s/b to I-75