If the Upper Freehold Planning Board votes to adopt a township master plan at the conclusion of the Sept. 24 public hearing, the whole master plan may end up being thrown out by a judge, and the process and debate over 2- vs. 4-acre zoning will have to start again from scratch.

How could such a fiasco occur at the conclusion of a two-year process that has divided the community and cost taxpayers nearly $60,000?

It can happen because seven of the 11 members and alternates on the Planning Board absolutely refuse to answer this simple question: Do they have a conflict of interest in voting on the master plan because they, a close family member, or a business associate are a financial supporter or member of United Landowners of Upper Freehold? I sent these questions twice, by certified mail the second time, to Planning Board members this summer.

The United Landowners have been lobbying the Planning Board to reject 4-acre zoning because they believe it will cost them money when they try to sell their farms to developers for residential housing. The Local Government Ethics Law makes it illegal for public officials to vote on matters that will benefit them or their relatives and businesses financially. Already, one Planning Board member has recused himself from voting on the master plan because he is a member of United Landowners.

So, why the silence on possible ties to United Landowners from seven public officials who have no trouble speaking on every other topic under the sun? Could it be that they have a conflict of interest that they refuse to disclose?

I am going to publicly confront the Planning Board at their Sept. 24 master plan hearing. If they still refuse to respond to questions about their possible ties to United Landowners, I will ask them to recuse themselves from voting on the master plan. If they do not recuse themselves from voting, I will have to consider filing charges against them. The end result of the defiant actions of these Planning Board members could be fines and the overturning of the vote on the master plan. It can all be avoided if those gentlemen simply disclose any conflicts of interest.

The residents of Upper Freehold deserve better than public officials who think they are unaccountable to the public. It is time for open government in Upper Freehold, free from the stench of personal interest guiding the vote of public officials. Our wonderful rural community should not have its money and time wasted on the shenanigans of a few large landowners.

I want to add that this is not an anti-farmer effort. Our community is a great place to live because of farmers. Many farmers in our town support 4-acre zoning and want nothing to do with the agenda of greed being pursued by United Landowners. The problem lies with a few individuals, not all of whom are farmers, who have every right to advocate for their personal enrichment, but they do not have a right to enrich themselves through their votes as public officials. That is a conflict of interest, and that is not going to be tolerated any more in Upper Freehold.

Chris Berzinski

Upper Freehold