CRANBERRY TWP — A battle over property lines dividing two township communities is the result of a fresh survey of the property, officials for one side of the dispute said.

In December, residents along Robinhood and Sherwood drives in the township received a letter from the Clearbrook Community Services Association through RJ Community, its management company. The letter outlined issues the association was taking with what it believed to be encroachments onto Clearbrook property.

According to Brad Dornish, an attorney representing RJ Community, the letter indicated a survey had been conducted in the area between the two communities, and found that such encroachments as sheds, swing sets and wood piles were actually on Clearbrook property.

Dornish said the survey came about after a series of disputes between homeowners in the two communities in 2016 and 2017, with some ending in calls made to the police.

He said the area of land — a “buffer zone” around the Clearbrook community — was intentionally established when the area was constructed in 1987. While the property is part of the community, he said the encroachment continued up the hill toward Clearbrook.

A survey conducted in fall 2017 reportedly confirmed the property lines as Clearbrook saw them, and found those encroachments. Dornish said it was the first definitive survey conducted in several years.

As a result, the Clearbrook CSA began discussing ways to stop the encroachment from occurring, with Dornish advising that a lease agreement for the land use was an agreeable solution.

The letter sent to residents in December set a deadline of Dec. 31 for removing items from the property, or for signing a lease agreement. The agreement included a $220 yearly fee for the use of the land, Dornish said.

As part of the agreement, residents using the land would be required to abide by covenants of the community association, and cannot interfere with the activities of those property owners. If property is damaged, they would be required to restore it. If the agreement is violated, it can be terminated, although notice would be given.

Dornish said the lease agreement would allow the association to revoke access to the land if it is decided to put it to use, or if the use is determined to be unsafe or against the terms of the agreement.

He said the lease agreement exists to outline the areas permitted for use, and is necessary as the Clearbrook community is ultimately liable for what happens on that property.

“It's so we don't have continuing creep, which is what appears to have happened in the last few years,” he said.

Ron Henshaw, director of planning and development services for Cranberry Township, said the township has been made aware of the dispute. However, he said the township can only recommend independent surveys be conducted.

“Short of that, the township isn't involved,” he said.

Residents in the area declined to speak on the record regarding the matter.

However, they said they believed the property did not actually belong to the Clearbrook community. One resident indicated they would be required to move a swimming pool or be subject to having it removed by the Clearbrook association at their own expense.

Dornish said in that particular instance, the pool itself is not on the property, but a fence is. He said if there is a disagreement on the survey, property owners are welcome to conduct their own and offer those to officials.

A quiet title action was filed by Sherwood Drive residents Richard Gruca and Constance Hornick-Gruca on Dec. 28 in which those residents claim the land in question is theirs.

According to the filing, Hornick-Gruca has owned her Sherwood Drive residence since 1973. Since that time, she has used the property directly behind hers as an extension of the property, placing a play set and storage shed on that land.

Additionally, the complaint indicates they have maintained that property, including clearing debris and cutting grass. Because of that, the complaint states the Grucas have acquired the land through “adverse possession,” in which a person takes possession of a neglected piece of land and improves it.

In Oct. 2012, the Grucas recorded a “quitclaim deed,” which gave them legal possession of the land, the suit argues.

The suit is pending in Butler County Court.

Meanwhile, Dornish said the quick turnaround on the dates outlined in the letter were determined to not be reasonable, and only about two weeks were given for response. Because of that, no action has been taken on the matter. He said he has heard from a few property owners.

Dornish maintains the lease agreement option is “pretty reasonable,” and hopes those using the property take advantage of it.

“I can't let you say you are going to continue using it without any response,” he said. “If owners won't engage in an agreement for permissive use, then the way, unfortunately, that we have to prevent the development is to actually remove them from the property.”