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

evidence that is required under Field v. Franklin Township, 190 N.J. Super. 326 (App. Div. 1983) and later decisions.1 Ms. McGovern, you have already informed the Board in your summary of the binding nature of the decision in Field and later cases. As these decisions hold, “feasibility” of the sewer system must be proved at this stage and cannot be left to later determination. The applicant has failed to offer any basis for feasibility and, for this reason alone, the application must be denied outright. Notably, the only statement about this issue from Mr. Plocker is that the regional sewer authority is obligated to “reasonably cooperate” with the developer. See Letter of Bryan D. Plocker, Esq., March 30, 2026 at 1. This is no answer to the mandatory requirement in Field v. Franklin Township that feasibility must be proved now, before the planning board makes a decision on approval of the site plan. Under the decision in Field, this cannot be made a condition of approval — under binding case law, feasibility must be shown now, in order for the Board to approve the plan. As Mr. Plocker’s letter shows, the applicant has simply failed to demonstrate feasibility of its sewer service, requiring outright denial of the site plan application. Speaking for the applicant, Mr. Plocker addresses the sewer question in a manifestly inadequate way. First, he repeats what has already been said, that the site plan contains a route on the property map for the sewage line running from the proposed new development to a pump station “south of Road D,” then to a manhole in Bakley Terrace in The Grande, and finally to the public sewer system; and, second, he refers at length to the obligations of West Orange under the 2020 Settlement Agreement to “endorse all required third-party applications for sewer service.” Both of these statements fail to respond to the Board’s and the Objector’s concerns and ignore the law. Merely demonstrating that a sewer line is traced on the application with a pipe and manhole cover and with a diagram showing a “pump station” The question of lack of proof of feasibility is not limited only to so-called “checklist” items, as the1 applicant has repeatedly implied. As Field v. Franklin Township, 190 N.J. Super. 326 (App. Div. 1983) and later decisions make clear, the absence of feasibility renders the application incomplete in substance as Field requires

mplied. As Field v. Franklin Township, 190 N.J. Super. 326 (App. Div. 1983) and later decisions make clear, the absence of feasibility renders the application incomplete in substance as Field requires substantial and credible evidence of feasibility, not merely checking off the item. If that evidence is missing, as it is with regard to sewer service, the application is not competent for approval. 4