Commentary: Morris Township official suggests solution for Morristown Green Acres dispute, to honor a gift from 1902

Morristown's recycling center at 90 Lake Road is at the heart of a dispute with the state DEP. Photo: Google maps.
6

 

Editor’s note: In an unusual case, Morristown officials have asked the state Department of Environmental Protection to remove 90 Lake Road–the town’s recycling center–from a preservation list. Neighbors in Morris Township are watching closely.  Township Committeewoman Cathy Wilson submitted these comments to the DEP, which she has shared with Morristown Green.

 

Dear DEP and Green Acres,

I write to express my thoughts on Morristown’s request to remove the 90 Lake Road property from its Recreation and Open Space Inventory (ROSI). As someone who loves local history, I find this situation fascinating. I write as an interested member of the public and not in my role as a Morris Township Committeewoman.

Let me say at the outset that I strongly support Morristown’s goal of retaining its eligibility for Green Acres funding. Retaining that eligibility requires a correction of this site’s ROSI status, which in turn requires a look back at this site’s history.

Cathy Wilson. Photo by Kevin Coughlin

Agreeing with the Town’s goal (and the legal evidence they provide) is not the same as agreeing with their historical perspective. History is all about differing interpretations of the same events. I see different meanings in this site’s history – which leads to a different solution possibility for resolving the ROSI dilemma. I believe my view merits consideration as part of the Town’s amendment request. That is my purpose in writing.

Like so many others, I can’t help being struck by the irony of this request: remove this property from the ROSI so the Town can be eligible for Green Acres funding in other locations in the future.

This situation strikes a deep chord within me. I have read Attorney Inglesino’s letter; the historic documents contained in his Exhibits; and most importantly – the deed. Meticulously penned by the property’s owner, Julia Burnham Sherman, in beautifully handwritten script that so many of our children could not even read today because cursive writing is no longer valued. Penmanship has become a lost art.

I imagine this woman in 1902 contemplating the future she wants and envisions for this beautiful 8.76 acre site that she owns and loves. For $1 she deeds it to the Town. All she wants in exchange is for the natural beauty of her property to be preserved for future generations.

Years pass. The property lies idle. The spirit of her bequest fades. The title passes from one bank to the next.

Over the years, countless individuals (unaware of this woman’s last wishes and lacking reverence for nature) think nothing of using this site as a dumping ground for their garbage.

Eventually, in 2000, the final bank signs a “Release of Deed Condition,” thus providing legal release from Ms. Sherman’s intended use of this property (conservation), a use that had never actually been enacted in the first place. A good example of truth that’s stranger than fiction! But there’s more…

In 1968, when the Town gets Green Acres funding for two adjacent properties, the 90 Lake Road site is “mistakenly” included on the Town’s ROSI. Attorney Inglesino’s assertion is correct: clearly this site had not been “used” for recreation or conservation purposes before then. Dumps are not parks or conservation sites.

The 1968 inclusion of this site on the Town’s ROSI may indeed have been a mistake, but it’s an error filled with karmic irony. The spirit of Julia Burnham Sherman’s original intent for the property (I wanted this property to be preserved – remember…???) arising in the “boilerplate” language of the Funding Agreement:

All lands now used for recreation or conservation purposes, or both, by the local unit shall not be disposed of or diverted to a use for other than recreation or conservation purposes, or both, without the approval of the Commissioner and the State House Commission of the State of New Jersey.”

In 1987, the Town begins using this site as its Recycling Center. Another use at odds with the deed, but certainly (to my view) a step up from years of wonton dumping of items that included God knows what.

At some point, this use of this site as a recycling center evolves to include storage for DPW vehicles and equipment – a use that is clearly visible to anyone who walks by. This site’s use for DPW storage is not referenced in any of the written materials the Town has shared with the public as part of this application.

The reason for that omission is not clear. But it does raise questions about how this use could expand going forward. Clarification on this point is needed.

Fast forward to today. The Town is asking to remove this property from the ROSI so it can be eligible for Green Acres funding for other sites in the future. The irony here is rich.

I cannot help but put myself in the place of that old woman who in 1902 hand writes a deed expressing her last wishes for the property she owns and loves. The fact that her wishes were never honored (and in fact were overlooked and ignored by everyone over the years) makes me very sad. Every system she relied on to protect her bequest failed her. In 1902, like every other woman, even voting was not an option for her.

I see this situation as a window into our collective values as a culture. In the past, undeveloped land was plentiful. Ubiquitous. Taken for granted by all. Who cared about preserving it? Certainly not the banks. Or the title companies. Or the legal system. Or the municipalities. Or the scores of individuals who thought nothing of using this site to dispose of items they no longer wanted or needed.

In regard to Morristown’s request to remove this property from its ROSI, my suggestions are as follows:

  • Since the Town has no intent to further develop this property from its present use as a recycling center, why not separate the recycling center from the rest of the original parcel and set up two lots: one for the recycling center and one for the remaining portion of the property.
  • Assign a “Public Purpose” (PP) zone to the portion of the property currently used as a recycling center. This zoning designation aligns with that use.
  • The current de-facto use of this site as a DPW storage center raises questions that merit further explanation by the Town before any final decision is made on their ROSI amendment request.
  • Assign a “Public Purpose Undevelopable” (PPU) zone to the remaining portion of the original property and keep that site on the ROSI. This designation would conform (at long last) with Julia Burnham Sherman’s final wishes for this property. If funding is needed to preserve this site for “conservation or recreation purposes, or both,” could the Town not apply for Green Acres assistance??

These suggestions feel to me like a viable compromise and a good way to bring this story full circle: The Town keeps the recycling center, a use which serves an important public need. After 119 years of being overlooked and ignored, the last wishes of the woman who carefully penned the handwritten deed for this property are finally honored. At long last, some portion of her land is officially recognized and preserved as open space. The ROSI correction is made, and the Town’s goal of maintaining its eligibility for Green Acres funding is upheld.

One other point: given the Recycling Center’s proximity to the Whippany River, I’d like to see DEP be actively involved in ensuring this site’s compliance with the rules that govern New Jersey’s waterways. Just as with undeveloped land, a similar tendency to take our waterways for granted is an ongoing theme in our collective history, particularly when it comes to the Whippany River. But that’s a story for another day…

Looking ahead, once the ROSI amendment is resolved, two “next step” suggestions come to mind:

  • I’d love to see a sign commemorating Julia Burnham Sherman’s role in the history of this property installed in a prominent location on this site.
  • PERHAPS this situation could open the door to discussions of ways in which the Town and the Township could work together to better preserve their adjacent open space lands?

In the meantime, the Town’s request to remove this property from its ROSI provides a fascinating opportunity for all of us to reflect on what we can learn from this situation about ourselves and the collective values that have shaped the history of this site over so many years.

Cathy Wilson
March 8, 2021

6 COMMENTS

  1. Cathy, thanks for your thoughtful review of this proposal and suggestions on how to proceed.

    Thanks also to Linda, Tom and Margret. I was unaware of the implications of removing the plot from ROSI, and hope the town and township can move forward constructively with this compromise.

  2. What a carefully considered and well-researched piece of writing, not to mention its intelligent and doable suggestions. How welcome it is and especially coming from this source. In the big picture, Cathy Wilson couldn’t be more right: Morristown and Morris Township ought to be cooperating more and not just on preserving open space; there are many options to consider, not least cooperation on responding to fires more efficiently and effectively. In the smaller picture, undertaking to honor the intent of Julia Burnham Sherman is more than overdue; her generosity in deeding this land to Morristown, and the purposes for which she intended it, need to be acknowledged, and met to the extent that we can, after such a long period of uses. Julia Burnham Sherman, the woman, the donor, needs to given recognition. Deciding to do just that during this month, Women’s History Month, couldn’t be more appropriate.

  3. The adjacent Butterworth sewage treatment plant in Morris Township is located on block 501, lots 41 and 42. These two lots are on the ROSI inventory of Green Acres properties. How is a sewage treatment plant different from a recycling center in terms of Green Acres funded properties?

  4. I admire Cathy Wilson and her thoughtful analysis. Please address the Butterworth sewage treatment plant which is adjacent to the Town of Morristown Recycling. What role do you see for both properties?

  5. I believe that this site is either part of or adjacent to the right-of-way that the NJ DOT assembled for the Route 24 extension many years ago. This almost certainly would have been incompatible with “ROSI” status at the time. Thankfully, the Route 24 extension failed, yet the State of NJ’s role in that history deserves to be part of the story here. May be worth a look.

  6. What a fine way for the Town and Township to work together on a worthwhile project. After a long history of both communities placing undesirable uses on each other’s borders, we now have an opportunity to start to compromise for the good of both communities.
    Next let Morristown stop focussing on new ratables and instead create a plan for providing for all our workers. Not just the DPW but the police and Fire departments as well. They have been working with inadequate facilities for many years. Working with the Township to develop a plan that provides for both communities would be a step in the right direction and help in determining where those facilities should be located..

LEAVE A REPLY