By David Kilby, Staff Writer
CRANBURY — Discussion about marking the township-owned easements that lead to township-owned land has caused a bit more unrest than expected because many of the easements edge upon privately owned land.
In June, the Township Committee formed a subcommittee “to come up with a solution for the township easements that lead to public lands … recommend what kind of ‘identification’ will be appropriate for marking the easements to make them more identifiable to the public” and to “look at all easements within the township and not just a specific area.”
After four meetings and a visit to the easements in question, the subcommittee voted 5-1 to mark most walkway easements with a green dot on the curb near the entry to the easement.
The 16 walkway easements were divided into four categories: five “A” easements or easements to public open space via private land; three “B” easements or township land leading to parks and open space; seven “C” easements or easements and township lands connecting neighborhoods; and one unfinished “D” easement leading to private land.
The only easement the subcommittee suggested not marking was the one at the end of Shady Brook Lane that presumably was built to connect to a future development, but as of now, just leads to privately owned farmland.
The subcommittee suggested A easements be marked with green dots with caveats, and it suggested B easements be marked with just green dots. If the Township Committee finds a need to mark the C easements, the subcommittee has no problem with doing that, provided the cost is “de minimis.”
The subcommittee also suggested white pines be planted by the easements if the green dots on the curb seemed too obtrusive.
At the Township Committee meeting Monday, the committee tabled the suggestions made by the subcommittee, saying more work needs to be done. The subcommittee has not planned another meeting date yet.
The easements causing the most controversy were the ones in Shadow Oaks, or A easements, leading to the 46 acres of township-owned land along the Millstone River.
Shadow Oaks resident Patti Janovitz, the one subcommittee member who voted against marking any of the easements, had a significant following at the committee meeting Monday.
”It (the discussion on marking the easements) has been a little more contested than we’d hoped,” said Tom Weidner, chairman of the subcommittee, as he presented the subcommittee’s suggestions.
Besides Mr. Weidner and Ms. Janovitz, the other members of the subcommittee are Andrew Johnson, of Shadow Oaks, Christine Parker, of Winwood, Brian Schilling, of the Cranbury Estates area, and Anna Drago, of the Maplewood area,
These residents were chosen due to their proximity to the easements in question.
Township Committeeman Jay Taylor served as liaison to the subcommittee and did not vote on its suggestions.
When the subcommittee asked for public input, “many residents didn’t even know an easement to the 46 acres along the Millstone River even existed,” Mr. Weidner said at Monday’s meeting. “How can we keep this a secret?”
”Whatever we do, we have to make sure it’s fair to all the residents in the community,” Mr. Taylor said.
Many members of the public said marking the easements with green dots would attract too much traffic, and members of the committee and the public felt the 46 acres wasn’t even a very safe place for outdoor activities.
Committeeman David Cook compared the 46 acres to the other areas easements lead to.
”Village Park is a well-manicured park,” he said. “There’s a significant difference with Shadow Oaks (easements leading to the 46 acres). It’s (the 46 acres) not conducive with the uses of other parks … You go there to hide, not to play basketball.”
A few members of the public applauded after Mr. Cook’s comment.
”It’s meant to be passive parkland,” Mayor David Stout said. “It was never intended for anything else.”
”This is something people can take advantage of in its undisturbed state,” Mr. Weidner said.
But the subcommittee did suggest, in the future, a 10- to 15-foot path through underbrush from the 46 acres to another 10 to 15 acres of open space.
Ms. Janovitz believed the suggestions for the easements violated the Department of Environmental Protection’s regulations on preserved wetland and also believed the green dots would attract too much traffic.
Jerry Hanson, of Washington Drive, said his property will be the most impacted if the township marked the easements in Shadow Oaks.
”Whose house will people come up to?” he asked. “Whose house will cars park next to?”
He added, “People don’t want strangers in their backyard. I don’t want a carload of kids from East Windsor pulling up to my property with brown bags because they’ve been invited by some subcommittee.”
He said the invasion of privacy outweighs any benefits the locals will receive from marking the easements.
”Has anyone felt that they don’t like living in Cranbury because they can’t walk through my backyard?” he added.
Mayor Stout then asked him what the committee should do.
”Leave it as it is,” Mr. Hanson said. “Balance the property rights against opening the area up. Nothing good can come from people going back there.”
Residents also informed the committee there is a great deal of deer, wild turkeys, foxes, possums and geese living and grazing along the Shadow Oaks easements.
”The easements exist,” Mayor Stout said. “The property exists. The question is should they be marked? Someone can go back there today if they want.”
He added, “We (the township) own a lot of easements for a lot of different purposes. It’s too polarizing at this point, which means there’s still work to be done. We want to try to come up with a solution that people can accept.”
He said this is what makes this town great.
”No matter what the issue in Cranbury, there will be passion,” he said.
