U.F. couple sees need for four-acre zoning

As residents of Upper Freehold Township, we’ve become quite concerned as to the future. We attend planning board meetings and listen to everyone’s ideas. At this time, we feel compelled to voice our support of four-acre zoning.

Our ideas seem to fall between Sue Kozel’s and William Miscoski’s as per their guest columns. We, too, would like to see Upper Freehold remain rural. We don’t have a problem with recreational areas, such as parks, so long as they’re available to be enjoyed by everyone. If we’re talking about clustering, it appears to us as a possible way for developers to circumvent minimum acreage requirements. We would like to see a more definitive plan.

Several factors have led to our decision. Development is the major factor. Allowing development to continue to run rampant means we have to change our choices (i.e., water, sewer, sidewalks, police department, etc.). Less development means we can maintain a rural aspect to our community. In addition, it means less density, which equals less increases in taxes for added services.

If we choose to allow development (commercial or residential) to continue at its present rate, we will be making changes which have certain ramifications. Continuous removal of trees will interrupt nature’s cycle. Adding exhaust fumes from increased traffic and at the same time removing our oxygen source, will most certainly have a devastating effect on air quality. Wildlife is also becoming increasingly endangered.

Traffic is another major problem. Our roads are two-lane roads that are already handling, in some areas, "four-lane" traffic. How much more can the area handle without major renovations?

Kudos to the Planning Board. Yours is not an easy task. Someone will always disagree with your decisions. We certainly do not envy your position. Good luck.

Ray and Linda Sibert

Upper Freehold