Shouldn’t an environmental commission address important environmental policy matters that affect its community? When it comes to Upper Freehold, nothing operates normally.

On May 12, Chairman David Perlman called me to tell me that he canceled the Upper Freehold Environmental Commission meeting that was supposed to review the pros and cons of establishing a tree ordinance. For two years, I have collected ordinances, background information and other support material to advocate for a tree conservation ordinance that would eliminate clear-cutting of trees, establish a Shade Tree Commission to protect landmark and historic trees from cutting, and promote a conservation program to protect against the loss of wildlife habitat when trees and forests are proposed for development. I’ve testified against clear-cutting at the Planning Board meetings. In November 2002, I wrote a 20-page vision statement to illustrate why the rural character of Upper Freehold is enhanced by tree conservation and environmental preservation. Recently, I walked with Committeeman Charlie Faber to see the devastation and clear-cutting of trees by the developer of The Woods at Cream Ridge. But that doesn’t matter now. Instead, obstruction of pro-environmental action is what the Environmental Commission continues to do best.

It doesn’t matter that my collection of 10 ordinances from other towns was already distributed to the Environmental Commission for review. It doesn’t matter that I spent 25 hours reading the ordinances and synthesizing them into a concise seven-page report.

The chairman canceled the meeting, and that’s that.

To make matters worse, the chairman informed me that requests passed on from me on behalf of two Upper Freehold residents were denied. Maureen Novozinsky and Sal Diecidue asked the commission to respectively discuss the time-specific stream encroachment permit and general wetlands permit for the Matrix project and the environmental impacts of the Allentown Western Bypass project. Ruling with an iron fist, Chairman Perlman once again said no.

Forget my request for an emergency meeting to address these two important matters that focus on flooding, groundwater protection, the impact of flooding on traffic safety, increased air pollution and auto emissions, and changing our township’s rural character. When our farmer-developer chairman says no, the answer is firmly no.

Last year, when I asked the commission to advise the Planning Board on the master plan and take a vote on 4 acre zoning, the commission’s own vice chairman, who serves as spokesman for the United Landowners of Upper Freehold, tabled my request. Then, the other members voted to send my question to the Township Committee attorney for a legal opinion. The Municipal Land Use Law allows Environmental Commissions to advise on the master plan, but when it comes to the "universe" of Upper Freehold, we have our own laws here. Since March, I am the only Environmental Commissioner who has worked with the Allentown High School students in collecting photos about the vanishing open spaces and farmland in Upper Freehold. Frankly, I am tired of being the only commissioner who works on environmental projects, attends training courses and conducts pro-environment research.

I am disgusted with the way the Environmental Commission has operated and the noninterest of most of the other members in anything other than allowing development to proceed. I ask, when will the Environmental Commission protect the environment?

From my painful experiences as the lone environmentalist on the township’s commission, let me recommend some significant operational and membership reforms to the Township Committee and stop the obstruction of pro-environment policies:

• Tell the commission to address time-sensitive regulatory matters.

• Make the chairman share important and regulatory correspondence on pending permit reviews with commission members between meetings.

• Replace the farmer-developer chairman and the developer-advocate vice chairman with leaders who care about the environment.

• Transform what is now a "Development Commission" back into an Environmental Commission. Eliminate the developers, their advocates, real estate agents or their spouses, or those who farm land speculators’ land, from involvement on the commission. Frankly, if Upper Freehold wants a Development Commission, form that body, and invite most of the current members of the Environmental Commission to serve on it. Leave me on the Environmental Commission, and let’s rebuild it with women and men who want to preserve our natural resources.

• Have the liaison from the Environmental Commission to the Planning Board be an environmental advocate.

• Never insult our residents who have questions about upholding environmental protection standards. The Environmental Commission serves the taxpayers, and let’s have a fair and open process that does not intimidate others from protecting the environment.

In the meantime, I hope the Township Committee members will lead, and demand that Chairman Perlman schedule an emergency meeting to address the Matrix and bypass issues. Let’s have Chairman Perlman directed not to cancel the next meeting on June 19 when the tree ordinance issue is again scheduled for discussion.

Sue Kozel, a resident of Upper Freehold, is serving her third year as an Environmental Commission member. She also served on the Upper Freehold Open Space Committee