Cranbury Forum | Bulletin | Info Sharing
[Click here to bookmark this page: http://cranbury.info]
▪
Cranbury School
▪
Cranbury Township
▪
Cranbury Library
▪
Cranbury.org
▪
Cranburyhistory.org
(Press Ctrl and = keys to increase font size)
Search
Register (optional)
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
[http://cranbury.info]
->
News | Events
Post a reply
Username
Subject
Message body
Emoticons
Font colour:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Indigo
Violet
White
Black
Font size:
Tiny
Small
Normal
Large
Huge
Close Tags
[quote="Guest"]Some of the information given to you does seem in error. The easements are existing, and have been in place since the development was built. There seems to be no intent to build a park or anything similar, it is too wet, etc.[/quote]
Options
HTML is
ON
BBCode
is
ON
Smilies are
ON
Disable HTML in this post
Disable BBCode in this post
Disable Smilies in this post
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Jump to:
Select a forum
Topics
----------------
News | Events
School | Parenting
Blogs by Cranbury Residents
Shopping | Good Deals | Price Talk
Home Sweet Home
House For Sale
Home Sales Pricing Records
Financial | Stocks | Mutual Funds
Cool Bytes & Bits
Garage Sale | ForSale Ads | Things to Trade
Tech Related (PC, Internet, HDTV, etc.)
Interesing and Fun Stuff to Share
What's Your Favorite?
Interests | Hobbies
Cranbury History
Radom Thoughts | Sports | Kitchen Sink
Amazon Deals
Local Business Info
----------------
Local Business Ads (FREE)
Support
----------------
Daily Sponsored Message & Amazon Ads
About Us | Your Privacy | Suggestion | Sponsored
Test Area (Practice your posting skills here)
Topic review
Author
Message
Guest
Posted: Fri, Jan 7 2011, 8:33 am EST
Post subject: Re: The December 20, 2010 Township Committee meeting agenda
Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
why do we need to mark the easements?
Here is why I think it is a good idea. I hate the idea of driving into the west property. I never knew we had a preserved area we could use in Shadow Oaks that I could walk to and take my daughter to..
It will start innocently enough... Cranbury parents taking their children for a walk... Kids walking their dogs... Kids hanging out... Drinking beer... And "necking"... Then the riff raff from East Windsor will find out... Then the bonfires will start... Drugs... Guns... Illegal immigrants... Perverts... Where does it end?
As I recall from my days as a young, under-age hooligan, we didn't choose our wooded party locations based on "marked easements". Trespassing was frankly at the low end of the spectrum of our legal concerns.
Guest
Posted: Fri, Dec 24 2010, 2:53 pm EST
Post subject: Re: The December 20, 2010 Township Committee meeting agenda
Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
46 acres? Sounds like a nice secluded place for the new library.
Or a Wawa.
Is that why the Shadow Oaks residents keep crying "Wah Wah Wah"?
Guest
Posted: Fri, Dec 24 2010, 2:50 pm EST
Post subject: Re: The December 20, 2010 Township Committee meeting agenda
Let Shadow Oaks residents keep this land as their own and tax them accordingly. Everyone is happy, they keep their private park and th rest of the town gets money in towards their taxes.
Maybe they can be billed for all the back years.
Guest
Posted: Fri, Dec 24 2010, 2:47 pm EST
Post subject: Re: The December 20, 2010 Township Committee meeting agenda
Guest wrote:
46 acres? Sounds like a nice secluded place for the new library.
Or a Wawa.
Guest
Posted: Fri, Dec 24 2010, 12:43 pm EST
Post subject: Re: The December 20, 2010 Township Committee meeting agenda
46 acres? Sounds like a nice secluded place for the new library.
Guest
Posted: Tue, Dec 21 2010, 11:43 pm EST
Post subject: Re: The December 20, 2010 Township Committee meeting agenda
You write this as a serious, reasoned argument yet the premise is ridiculous. You repeatedly suggest that all someone has to do is make a trip to Town Hall and request access to a 25 year old map, study it and then they can access the public wetlands, no problem. If you didn't right this so earnestly I would have assumed it was done tough-in-cheek. You actually made the case stronger for marking them. of course it is silly to expect the average person to do all that just to access the public lands.
Also, you are incorrect that you must cross private property to access this space. There is at least one point at each end, particularly on Old Trenton, where the public land is directly accessible without first crossing private property. Further, you describe the history as if it justifies this being an unusual or unique situation when it isn’t. It is common for developers, often at the insistence of the Townships, to designate some public space as part of a major development project. They didn’t accidentally end up with some inaccessible leftover space as you suggest. That’s a silly notion. Of course they and the Township would have understood precisely what space would not be private property and would be deeded to the Township well before the first foundation was poured.
The real issue here is that due to a couple decades of inaction the residents along the water-facing side of Washington have gotten used to the idea that their properties effectively extend to the waterline even though they would have clearly seen otherwise in the surveys they had to do to close their loans and sales. I remember when I was shopping for homes over an extended period and viewed at least several adjacent to the public land. I always asked where the property line extended to and was told in every case to the waterline. I have subsequently visited a couple other people who live there and they said the same thing. It’s never been true but that has become the perception and since it has never been utilized otherwise from the point-of-view of the people living there is must seem like a sudden encroachment on their private property. Many of them have maintained their lots to the waterline and managed their landscaping with the presumption of their property extending to it. They might have planted large evergreen shrubs along their property line decades ago had they anticipated hikers and dog walkers strolling along the waterfront. And in practice even the idea of the “waterfront” is nebulas since it is a wetland that ebbs and flows substantially season to season.
I appreciate their POV but I don’t agree with it. At the end of the day this is public land and if some people would like to Township to make it easier to utilize that is their right and a reasonable one. If the owners feel otherwise they should get together and come up with a reasonable offer to buy the land and fairly compensate the Township and its taxpayers. Otherwise, accept that you had the opportunity for due diligence when you bought the house and any expectation of it remaining private was unreasonable.
guests
Posted: Tue, Dec 21 2010, 11:25 pm EST
Post subject: Re: The December 20, 2010 Township Committee meeting agenda
Guest wrote:
This is the difficulty- Change.
When the development was put in they created easements so people could go back there. If that was not intended and rather it was to be preserved for those who live in front of the property then the easements would not have been created.
Then people forgot, didn't where to use them, didn't know they existed or time just went on and it became private back yard land.
Now, someone has said wait a second this land is public and the public should know how to legally enter it since it is tax payer owned.
So that is the problem- Change back to the original premise that people were supposed to be able to get access when people have become accustomed to it not being used.
I am curious if residents who live there have any solution on how to let people know how to access the land other than don't do it.
The reality is that Cranbury obtained these 40 acres only after the developer completed Shadow Oaks. The builder no longer had any use for it since the land was unable to be developed any further, therefore deeded it to the town. Easements where mapped out to show how to get access to these wetlands, which I believe have been on file in town since the land was obtained. Anyone interested in gaining access to the 40 acres could have referenced this information at anytime over the past 25 plus years by viewing maps on file in Town Hall. The major difference between the Shadow Oaks easements and the other easements in town (ex. Maplewood, the Green, Leidtke) are that the Shadow Oaks easements fall on private property, while every other easement falls on public property which is owned and maintained by the town. Public access via private property introduces liability issues for the homeowner, as well as questions about the police and fire depts obtaining access in cases of emergency. I believe the residents of Shadow Oaks are not denying the public access to this area however, marking these areas without thoroughly understanding all the implications would be irresponsible and negligent. The bottom line is that Cranbury is not short of open public space and park like areas for any resident to enjoy as they see fit. If a resident or the public is truly interested in accessing these 40 acres, view the map in Town Hall to find access points. Is it really necessary to disrupt private property to add yet another "public" open area to the town, does this pro really out-weigh the con in this instance?
Guest
Posted: Tue, Dec 21 2010, 8:56 pm EST
Post subject: Re: The December 20, 2010 Township Committee meeting agenda
How will they be marked?
Guest
Posted: Mon, Dec 20 2010, 10:50 pm EST
Post subject: Re: The December 20, 2010 Township Committee meeting agenda
When will the easements be marked?
Guest
Posted: Mon, Dec 20 2010, 3:16 pm EST
Post subject: Re: The December 20, 2010 Township Committee meeting agenda
I'd like to explore this public land. How do I find out where it is and where the borders are? I looked at the Township zoning plan here and it doesn't seem to clearly demark it.
http://www.cranburytownship.org/zoning_map_2008.pdf
Is there a map somewheer that shows it? Where can you enter and exit it?
Guest
Posted: Mon, Dec 20 2010, 3:13 pm EST
Post subject: Re: The December 20, 2010 Township Committee meeting agenda
Guest wrote:
marking the easements is a bad idea who thought of this?
Perhaps someone who wants Cranbury residents to be able to use their public resource. What is your alternative suggestion for helping people use it?
Guest
Posted: Mon, Dec 20 2010, 2:46 pm EST
Post subject: Re: The December 20, 2010 Township Committee meeting agenda
marking the easements is a bad idea who thought of this?
Guest
Posted: Sun, Dec 19 2010, 8:49 pm EST
Post subject: Re: The December 20, 2010 Township Committee meeting agenda
Guest wrote:
Selfish bastards. Period.
Exclamation point!
Guest
Posted: Sun, Dec 19 2010, 4:54 pm EST
Post subject: Re: The December 20, 2010 Township Committee meeting agenda
Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
shadow oaks resident wrote:
many of us that really live in shadow oaks have signed a petition to stop the marking of the easements including everyone who lives next to and adjacent to the easements.
Sorry the rest of us would dare intrude on your 40 acre private park.
There's 40 acres of undeveloped township-owned land back there?
Can we put COAH housing on it?
There's about 40 homes for sale on main street. Can we buy them and convert the home to multi family COAH housing?
Yep, but why would we spend money on the land when we already own 40 acreas. Aren't you saying we should all spend money to buy land when we already own 40 acres? Why should I pay for your private nature preserve? Seems to me whining about marking easements may lead to a worse fate.
Guest
Posted: Sun, Dec 19 2010, 4:38 pm EST
Post subject: Re: The December 20, 2010 Township Committee meeting agenda
Selfish bastards. Period.
Guest
Posted: Sun, Dec 19 2010, 10:41 am EST
Post subject: Re: The December 20, 2010 Township Committee meeting agenda
Rather than making snippy postings, without adding your name, I'd advise actually presenting your concerns at a town council meeting.