Objector WeCare Response dated May 4 2026 to Letter of Bryan D Plocker Esq

Bryan D. Plocker, Esq., March 30, 2026 at 5. Thus, the applicant does not deny the project exceeds the maximum ADT for the site but tries to avoid the issue by claiming that there is no “safety” hazard. This will not suffice: the maximum ADT is the law and it defines the safety margin for the site. Applicant cannot evade the law by claiming it need not obey RSIS because it believes the road is safe. ADT itself is the law and is an objective safety measure. This Board cannot set aside ADT in favor of the applicant’s subjective view of safety — ADT is the law and the Board must follow. ADT in this instance is violated and the application must be denied for this reason alone. 4. Failure of applicant to address other concerns raised by the Board in its March 4,2026 resolution. None of the other concerns of this Board are dealt with seriously or adequately in Mr. Plocker’s letter, except to say, in essence, that the applicant feels no need to make changes or any additions to the site plan. Moreover, none of the Board’s concerns are addressed by an engineer, but only by counsel for the applicant. Mr. Plocker cannot offer an expert opinion on these matters, such as why a detention basin cannot be situated to return water to the northern part of the wetlands and avoid massive environmental harm. Only the applicant’s expert can explain why the applicant believes it cannot comply with the Board’s seven requests. Mr. Plocker’s letter is not an adequate response and should not be accepted by the Board. For the most part, Mr. Plocker refers back to materials introduced long ago to the Board in this hearing process, ignoring the fact that by its vote on March 4, 2026, the Board signaled that such prior evidence was not sufficient to satisfy its concerns. The Board’s March 4, 2026 resolution and its seven questions was made precisely because the Board was not satisfied with that prior evidence. Once the Board has identified significant deficiencies in the application, it is not enough, as Mr. Plocker attempts to argue, to say that the Board has a narrowly circumscribed role and that the applicant has adequately demonstrated its compliance with the IH-1 ordinance or that other agencies, such as NJDEP, have provided the 8

necessary approvals. In effect, Mr. Plocker’s client is dismissive of the Board’s concerns and refuses to address them, claiming they have (or will) be addressed elsewhere or are beyond what he insists is the Board’s constricted jurisdiction. Finally, a word is in order about the applicant’s repeated claims that this Board may not take any action except to approve the site plan, a claim the applicant makes because the plan is a part of the municipal affordable housing program. This is manifestly untrue. This Board retains its full discretion and judgment in reviewing this site plan despite any settlement by the municipality and regardless of any affordable housing element. No decision of our courts diminishes the authority and judgment of the planning board in protecting the public health and safety simply because a proposal contains inclusionary housing. This Board must still meet its full statutory duty to protect the public health, safety and welfare and is not bound to approve this plan by the IH-1 ordinance or the municipality’s settlement agreement. CONCLUSION Based on the applicant’s almost willful failure to address the compelling issues and concerns raised, not only by the Board, but by the vast number of citizens, groups and neighboring governmental bodies, the Board should deny the application. Respectfully submitted, Bruce I. Afran, Counsel for Objector Via Email To: dmcgovern@gpmlegal.com jvite@westorange.org 9