By KENNY WALTER
Staff Writer
LONG BRANCH — After public outcry, the city council opted not to vacate an easement on 907 Ocean Avenue.
The council rejected the ordinance when three of the five council members voted against the measure during the April 12 meeting.
The ordinance would have vacated an easement, which was initially granted to allow the city to construct and maintain a jetty on the beach. However, there currently is no jetty on the property and the property owner has indicated he would like to clear title on the property and construct a single-family home.
The vote came after a lengthy public hearing where several members of the public and environmental community claimed the area was frequently used as an access point for surfers and fishermen.
Councilman John Pallone said by vacating the easement, which dates to 1938, the city would potentially be asked to vacate other easements throughout the city.
“Are we opening a can of worms by saying if we vacate this easement and if everyone else might want to do a project and we might have to vacate all of them?” Pallone said. “Then we have to incur the expense of all the legal costs.”
The land is currently owned by developer 907 Ocean Avenue, LLC, and city attorney Lawrence Shapiro said the developer, who plans on constructing a single-family home, indicated they wanted the city to vacate the easement in order to clear title on the property.
Pallone and Councilwomen Mary Jane Celli and Joy Bastelli all voted against the measure. Pallone explained he voted no because he felt the easement was outdated because the city has not used it for close to 80 years.
Councilwoman Kate Billings, who voted for vacating the easement, said one of the misconceptions is that the city would be eliminating public access by vacating the easement.
“The access that people are concerned about is private access that the property owner is allowing them to do. It has nothing to do with public access,” she said.
Shapiro also said the property owner has the option to discontinue allowing public access on his property at any point, with or without the easement.
According to Business Administrator Howard Woolley Jr., there are at least six public access points between Takanassee Lake and the Deal border. That area covers approximately 1.2 miles.
Shapiro said because the jetty does not exist, this easement is different from many of the other public easements throughout the city.
“The fact that the city hasn’t used it or even remembered it existed is indicative of something as opposed to other easements that are used all the time,” he said.
Shapiro explained what happens when the city does not vacate the easement.
“It is still an open right, the city can’t put sand there and the public can’t walk through there, the guy could put a fence up if he wanted,” he said. “But if the city said we have to go and do some work to this jetty, the city through this document has the right to do that.”
Mayor Adam Schneider also defended the city’s public access ledger, saying the city has acquired and maintained more access points in Elberon in the last 10-15 years.
“We have public access within about 75 or 100 feet of this property, and this spot is not a public access point,” he said. “What we’ve done in the last few years is increase public access so at least put what we’re doing in context.”
However, Tim Dillingham, executive director of the American Littoral Society, wants the city to assess all the access points in Elberon in terms of parking and the scope of the public’s use.
John Weber, the Mid-Atlantic regional manager of the Surfrider Foundation, said the easement point should be added to the city’s public access points.
“There is a bit of a missed opportunity,” Weber said. “I think there is more that could be done. Let’s face it, parking isn’t great and the more access there is the better.”
Other residents criticized the city, claiming some of the access points are poorly maintained and safety hazards.
According to Shapiro, the property has transferred ownership several times since 1938, with the most recent transfer coming in 2013. He also said the property owner does have the option to seek a court order to force the city to vacate the easement.
