March 4, 2026, Planning Board Regular Meeting - WEHI Transcript

21 of 54 sheets Page 81 to 84 of 136 03/11/2026 06:15:33 AM 81 violates that principle. I think this project needs a1 second actual access point. If the applicant had2 proposed to purchase land and extend Walter Street off3 of Cunningham which connects the PBW or to get approvals4 to connect to Devon Road in Essex Falls, which leads to5 Bloomfield Avenue, I think that would be another story,6 or and I acknowledge that none of these ideas are good7 for the woods or the wetlands or for the neighborhoods8 and the residents, but they'd at least make a difference9 in making the project safe from an egress and emergency10 perspective. An extension from Blakely combined with an11 opening of the cul-de-sac on Blakely and Marie, which12 has already been mentioned, where there's already a13 small change separating them to provide a way out14 through Schmidt and Marmon back to Pleasant Valley, or15 an agreement with Essex Fells to open and maybe improve16 Oval in the other direction. But when only Warner or17 only Warner and this hand waive of an idea of wink,18 wink, Kuzak, it's unsafe. Not for emergency access to19 get in, not necessarily, though I'm not convinced about20 access through Howell, more because of the steepness and21 the possibility of it being unplowed in the winter, than22 because of the use variance question which maybe doesn't23 resolve before we make a decision, because without24 Howell there is no secondary emergency vehicle entrance25 82 and that has to exist. But my point here is that I'm1 really focused on the emergency egress of residents.2 Egress is a required element under RSIS as well as under3 our more general charges of the public safety and I4 don't think that we have it without a true second road.5 MR. MacNEILL: Yeah, I don't disagree with6 anything you outlined there and not to put it back on7 you, but that is now your role as a board member to8 weigh what the applicant has presented and whether you9 feel, one, if you already denied the de minimus10 exception, but feel if the application is restricting or11 would harm public safety and welfare.12 MR. ALPER: Thank you.13 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Cardoza.14 Mayor McCartney.15 MAYOR McCARTNEY: Well, I just -- sorry. I16 wanted to follow what Kim was saying. So this sounds17 like this could be another condition that we just had 2418 inches of snow, that there has to be a condition that19 the

Well, I just -- sorry. I16 wanted to follow what Kim was saying. So this sounds17 like this could be another condition that we just had 2418 inches of snow, that there has to be a condition that19 the Oval Road egress, Howell Drive and even the one, at20 The Grand, would have to be cleared. Would have to be21 cleared for emergency. Any emergency incident. Has to22 be a condition.23 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay.24 MR. KLEIN: The hydrants.25 83 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Any other1 comments/questions?2 Oh, Mr. Cardoza.3 MR. CARDOZA: Yeah, no, thank you Mr.4 Chairman.5 Much of what I want to discuss already been6 covered. We discussed the ongoing issues with the smell7 effecting several residences and how we're going to8 follow up on that. That was during Council Person9 Scarpa's questioning. Or comments, I should say. And10 then the original plan showing sewer lines connecting to11 the stormwater basin, Mr. Alper brought that up, so I'm12 left with two questions for our board attorney,13 basically to help me focus in or conceptualize some of14 the thinking here. So the one road aspect, which Mr.15 Alper just did a great job summarizing, Ms. McGovern,16 when you brought us through our -- your opening and you17 laid out how we should think about things, you mentioned18 feasibility and assessing probability versus19 possibility, and when we consider that there was already20 a fire or maybe two of them if I'm recalling correctly,21 how should we weigh the fact that this is, again, a22 contiguous property, so -- I mean, we have had Dr.23 Bagoff or Chairman Bagoff layout how, you know, we could24 only assess traffic flow on the property as opposed to25 84 the extent, you know, where it extends, where that1 traffic flow ends up and we're assessing public safety.2 So I'm just probability versus possibly, and how we're3 supposed to look at that?4 MS. McGOVERN: When you listen to experts5 speak you listen to whether they're giving you an6 opinion to a reasonable degree of probability or are we7 just hearing this might be possible, this might be8 possible. Now, you're indicating you've seen some9 examples of road closures, so that's within your in10 experience of a person, not necessarily just living11 something in this town, but you know the area, of what12 things that you find are potential probable hazards that13 have to be considered. A meteorite hitting this site is14 a possibility,

st living11 something in this town, but you know the area, of what12 things that you find are potential probable hazards that13 have to be considered. A meteorite hitting this site is14 a possibility, that you can't concern. But something15 less than that you would have to --16 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: A tree falling,17 certainly within the realm --18 MS. McGOVERN: Potentially, but you also19 have to weigh it and you have to weigh the20 reasonableness of what can be done in that situation.21 Temporary restraints versus a problem that would create22 a danger to peoples lives.23 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: Well, we heard the24 resident testimony from Marea and we're concerned about25