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

2. Applicant’s failure to meaningfully addressed the issue of the fire tower. Mr. Plocker appears to recognize the necessity of the water tower for fire prevention as he states in the concluding sentence of his section on “Water” at page 6 of his letter, as follows: “If, for any reason, a separate water tower structure is required, Applicant recognizes that it would need to apply for amended site plan approval.” See Letter of Bryan D. Plocker, Esq., March 30, 2026 at 6. All this does is kick the can down the road as to a compelling and fundamental safety question. In fact, the applicant is ignoring the entirety of the question. The whole point of the Board expressing concern about the water tower is because the unrefuted evidence of the Objector’s engineer demonstrated its necessity. The purpose of addressing this question now is to avoid construction and development only to have to plan the complex and difficult inclusion of pipes, pumps and a water tower later, after structural elements are in place and it may be too late to find an adequate means of including the infrastructure necessary for the water tower. This Board’s task is “planning”, and this means addressing the critical matters now, not pushing it down the road for a time when it may be too late to address. The need for the water tower was addressed by Objector’s engineer, it was not refuted and it goes to a primary safety question that this Board found to be compelling but applicant refuses to even discuss. It is not enough to build and construct and then, later, seek to amend to include this facility. It is not even clear at present where it would go, a decision that cannot be left to a point after construction is commenced or undertaken. 3. The applicant’s failure to adequately address the means of ingress and egress. The Board’s primary concern that there is only a single way into and out of this large-scale proposed development is paramount and goes to a major and compelling public safety question that is directly within the Board’s jurisdiction. In fact, at its March 4, 2026 special meeting, the Board had a separate vote on whether this issue should be included in its list of concerns for the applicant, and the Board voted 8-1 in favor of 6