December 11, 2024 Planning Board Special Meeting Transcript - WEHI

at you're discussing?1 MR. AFRAN: I mean, Mr. DeFeo made a2 reference to what's in his tree report, yet he's never3 testified to it before. It's never been produced as an4 exhibit. I have no idea what he's talking about.5 I believe it has been -- I'm almost positive it6 A. was submitted at your request.7 I don't have it. I've never seen it.8 Q. I answered that.9 A. Do you have it in front of you right now?10 Q. MS. McGOVERN: Tree report complete. File11 updated.12 THE WITNESS: No, there's the update and then13 I believe there was the original.14 Why -- okay. So we'll go back to that. Let me15 Q. ask you a question. Where, if you go back to your16 presentation, right.17 Yes.18 A. THE WITNESS: Is this working?19 Go to the page with the spot study20 Q. identification. No, the circles.21 That?22 A. Yes. Thank you.23 Q. Yeah.24 A. Now, what's the actual geographic area covered by25 Q. 20 each of your test areas?1 Test areas 100 -- they're 10 by 10.2 A. 10 by 10?3 Q. Roughly 100 square meters.4 A. I'm sorry, meters or feet?5 Q. 100 square feet. 10 by 10.6 A. Each ones 10 by 10 square feet?7 Q. Approximately.8 A. Okay.9 Q. And how many do you have?10 22.11 A. 22. And so 100 times 22 is 22,000. You're12 Q. saying you did a 22,000 square foot survey -- excuse me.13 I'm going to use my phone and do this, because I don't14 claim my math's great but --15 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Afran, 2,200?16 2,200 square feet.17 Q. Well, that's very interesting. You said that18 this survey was how many square feet?19 Each plot was 10,000.20 A. Square feet?21 Q. I'm sorry. 10,000, yeah.22 A. Well, that's a heck of a lot more than you did?23 Q. I'll explain again how this works.24 A. No, no, no, don't go explain anything. Answer25 Q.

01/08/2025 12:06:06 PM Page 21 to 24 of 100 6 of 38 sheets 21 the question. Isn't that a lot more than what you did?1 Yes, I said that early on.2 A. No, you said earlier that they did 2 percent and3 Q. you did 4 to 5 percent of the site.4 Again, I will try to explain the difference.5 A. They used 30,000 square feet of 113 acres, that was6 their study area. We had a very defined study area7 because we had an up to date site plan. So we used a8 defined study area based on the approximate 27 acres9 being disturbed. We randomized the selection, not in10 the field, that selection was randomized using GIS data11 before we went to the field. That's how you ensure12 randomization. We're not looking at the woods which13 indicates bias.14 Let's go back to the size issue. You're saying15 Q. that, when you said you did 4 to 5 percent it was of the16 27 acres and their 2 percent was of the whole 113 acres,17 is that the idea of what you're saying?18 Correct.19 A. Okay.20 Q. So in reality they actually tested far more21 forest than you did, but your percent of the area of22 disturbance is higher than their percent of the whole23 property, is that what you're saying?24 What I was saying, I'm sorry, and by the way I25 A. 22 misstated, I apologize. I had so many numbers in my1 head I misstated the numbers.2 You're the scientist, you tell us?3 Q. They actually studied about 0.6 percent and we4 A. did about 2.2 percent. The difference being if you take5 a 10,000 square foot, plot clearly within the 10,0006 square feet, you have a better chance, so I identified7 all the trees within the 10,000 square feet, just a8 bigger plot. So on the specific 10,000 square feet you9 might get more detailed information about the10 speciation. But from a statistical study standpoint,11 you pick your plots randomizing them. Randomizing them12 makes them more accurate in any statistical analysis --13 Mr. DeFeo, I really don't mean to interrupt you.14 Q. You said this many times. I have some questions I'd15 like to get to. All right.16 Now, what do you mean by, randomized? What does17 that actually mean. You keep using the phrase,18 randomized, the selection is randomized. Who did the19 selection of your spot checking, your 10 by 10 squares?20 Who selected those sites.21 I will explain it again.22 A. No, no, it's a simple question. Who selected the23 Q. sites?24 And I have explained it and I'm

of your spot checking, your 10 by 10 squares?20 Who selected those sites.21 I will explain it again.22 A. No, no, it's a simple question. Who selected the23 Q. sites?24 And I have explained it and I'm going to explain25 A. 23 it again. I answered your question before and I'll1 answer it again.2 Mr. DeFeo, you haven't answered that question at3 Q. all. It's a simple question. Who selected the sites4 that we're looking at on the screen?5 I will answer your question again. We selected6 A. that working with Davies, they were charged, find me a7 randomized study plot. They use a GIS methodology which8 means you don't go to the forest first, you use9 satellite imagery, you use a GIS randomized plot system,10 so it random -- the computer helps pick the plots11 randomly. Randomizing means I have no bias, so when you12 see a particular circle we just pick a circle. It's13 sort of like, I don't know, if you're dividing something14 up amongst friends and you have a bunch of numbers in a15 hat and you close your eyes and pick a number out of the16 hat, it's randomized. You have a random chance equally17 of any one of those circles being picked. That is what18 randomizing means.19 So you closed your eyes and like pin the tail on20 Q. the donkey you just point your finger and all of a21 sudden all of those spots ended up on the exact area of22 disturbance. Is that what you're calling randomized?23 No, I'll try and explain it again.24 A. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I think he said the25 24 computer randomized it.1 MR. AFRAN: No, he didn't say that. He said2 we use GIS.3 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: He just said the computer4 randomized.5 MR. AFRAN: No, he didn't say that. They6 used GIS to do a randomized identification. That's not7 what he said.8 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: With a computer.9 MR. AFRAN: Did the computer pick the sites10 or did the people you work with pick the sites? Let's11 start with that.12 COMMISSIONER KLEIN: The dots? The number13 of dots, not the circle. The number of dots you're14 talking about. 1-40, 50 whatever it is?15 THE WITNESS: The computer picks those.16 COMMISSIONER KLEIN: And you told it to pick17 it within the yellow shape?18 THE WITNESS: Right.19 COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Okay. Thank you. Got20 that so far.21 THE WITNESS: That's what makes it22 randomizing.23 COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Who picked the black24 circles? I'm trying to get to it. He started a half an25

7 of 38 sheets Page 25 to 28 of 100 01/08/2025 12:06:06 PM 25 hour late, I'm just trying to get to the point.1 THE WITNESS: The foresters office, the2 foresters team then looks at all those dots, says, Okay3 how do we get a good cross section of that yellow area4 and let's start with the first 22 circles. And that's5 what you do. Notice there are 55 circles there, that's6 because in a purely statistical basis you wind up7 covering the right percentage, you would go 55. You8 circle the first 22 and then when you're in the field9 and you start seeing the data coming in, you start to10 run randomly what they call a running mean, and that11 running mean says, you know, statistically nothing is12 changing here. There is no reason to keep bringing13 circle in spots because nothing is really statistically14 different. So therefore you stop and run the running15 mean and do a statistical analysis. But everything in16 terms of that selection is randomized. There's no, ooh,17 let's take plot 16 because it gives us better trees.18 Whereas this, from this particular study that you19 reference and provided to me, I have no way of knowing20 why those three 10,000 square foot plots were picked and21 I don't know that anyone would at this point after 1722 years.23 Let me just summarize --24 Q. COUNCIL PRESIDENT RUTHERFORD: Did you ask25 26 Paul Anderson?1 THE WITNESS: No.2 COUNCIL PRESIDENT RUTHERFORD: Right. Than3 you can't really make that statement if you did not4 inquire about it. You're making a statement --5 THE WITNESS: I said, I have no way of6 knowing.7 Say that again.8 Q. I said, I have no way of knowing if it's a9 A. randomized study because the methodology should be10 provided on that sheet and it's not.11 Well, it's not provided on the document we're12 Q. looking at that you gave us?13 This is a PowerPoint, it's just meant to be an14 A. overview. It's not meant to be testimony.15 Well, the point is you suggested they did not do16 Q. a randomized study. The did not do as statistical17 analysis.18 I have no evidence they did, that's correct.19 A. Because you didn't bother finding out, isn't that20 Q. correct?21 No, because it doesn't say -- it would have said22 A. it on this plot sheet. When you submit a plot sheet of23 that detail you should say whether it's a randomized24 study. I don't know -- as far I understand this was25 27 just done by a landscaper, that's

on this plot sheet. When you submit a plot sheet of23 that detail you should say whether it's a randomized24 study. I don't know -- as far I understand this was25 27 just done by a landscaper, that's one thing Paul did1 tell me. He said this was done by a landscaper or2 landscape company or something along those lines.3 He didn't say that --4 Q. Not by a forester.5 A. He didn't mean a landscaper as in a guy who6 Q. pushes the lawnmower?7 I don't know what he meant. It was a landscape8 A. company. He said it was not a forester, because I did9 ask that question, by the way. Did they use a forestry10 company that understands this type of analysis and he11 said, no.12 Mr. Anderson?13 Q. It is my recollection -- that's my recollection14 A. of my discussion with what he said.15 And you have no knowledge as to who did the study16 Q. we're talking about?17 No, and I don't really care because it's18 A. statistically an invalid study.19 And -- fine, you've made this point. Thank you.20 Q. Now, I want to clarify something on the question21 of randomization. We're looking at the, I'll call it,22 we don't have page numbers, I'll call it, I think it23 says, Tree Survey Plots?24 I'm sorry. Up here, is that what you're asking?25 A. 28 Uh-huh.1 Q. Look at the screen, yes.2 Which one?3 A. Go back to where we were.4 Q. Oh, I'm sorry.5 A. I didn't ask you to change it.6 Q. It says, Tree Survey Conducted December 10, 2019.7 That's the page.8 Yes.9 A. Now, zero in on it so we could see the circles10 Q. better. Now, there are light green lines all over,11 that's the area of disturbance of the proposed property,12 is that correct?13 Correct. Based on the planning that we had at14 A. that time, yes.15 It's the only disturbance on the plan sheet?16 Q. Yes.17 A. Yes.18 Q. Now, so when you say, the computer did a19 randomized selection, the computer was told to select20 only within the area of disturbance, isn't that correct?21 Correct.22 A. I want to clarify this because if it's reviewed23 Q. by another body we need to make sure this is24 understandable.25

01/08/2025 12:06:06 PM Page 29 to 32 of 100 8 of 38 sheets 29 So when you say, randomization, the computer1 chose randomized spots within those light green lines,2 fair to say?3 Yes, it was given parameters. That's what you do4 A. with a computer, correct.5 And then, and it seems to be fairly evenly6 Q. distributed numbers throughout the green lines, would7 you agree with that?8 I haven't plotted the distance between it, the9 A. computer will pick whatever distance it deems necessary.10 Mr. DeFeo, you're looking at it with your eyes11 Q. like I am. I'm asking you a question.12 I haven't measured it.13 A. Mr. DeFeo --14 Q. But I would say it seems it's very evenly15 A. distributed. Yeah, I would say that.16 That wasn't so hard. Thank you. That's all I'm17 Q. asking.18 And then I want to clarify exactly the next19 stage. Then people you work with, you or others, chose20 numbers that the computer picked and took a selection,21 is that correct?22 Yes, in order to maximize the distribution of the23 A. study.24 Right. In other words, the computer chose random25 Q. 30 numbered sites and they look fairly evenly distributed1 within the green lines?2 Correct.3 A. You directed it to do that and then your staff or4 Q. people you work with chose circled areas within that,5 fair to say?6 That's fair, yes.7 A. And each of those circled areas represents a 108 Q. by 10 section?9 Correct, 100 square feet.10 A. Okay. Good.11 Q. Now, let's turn to the tree survey from 2010,12 Exhibit O-3. If you can put that on the screen.13 I don't have that.14 A. No. Thank you.15 Q. I'm sorry, just so I can correct the record. I16 A. keep saying 100 square feet, it's 100 square meters.17 It's 10 meters by 10 meters, I'm sorry. I've been18 traveling to Europe and back and I don't know whether19 I'm metric or English right now.20 So wait a minute. Your survey --21 Q. 100 square meters, sorry. 10 meters by 1022 A. meters, that's the standard. I apologize.23 They're in metric not feet, correct?24 Q. That's metric. That's what we should be using.25 A. 31 I apologize.1 MS. McGOVERN: This is O-3, right? What we2 have up on here.3 MR. AFRAN: I can't see very well, but looks4 like it is.5 THE WITNESS: Oh, you're asking me.6 MS. McGOVERN: No, I just want the exhibit7 number for the record. It's O-3.8 MR. ALPER: Mr. DeFeo, I don't know this IS9 really relevant, but if you're, if you should do the10 math

you're asking me.6 MS. McGOVERN: No, I just want the exhibit7 number for the record. It's O-3.8 MR. ALPER: Mr. DeFeo, I don't know this IS9 really relevant, but if you're, if you should do the10 math in metric, the 100 meter plots instead of 10011 square foot plots, does that change the percentage of12 the acreage that you cover?13 THE WITNESS: No, it doesn't really change14 it, because we work off conclusions. I just misstated15 it.16 Exhibit O-3 doesn't indicate feet or meters --17 Q. I apologize.18 A. -- so I'm assuming they used meters as well, but19 Q. doesn't change it one way or the other.20 All right. So if we could zero in -- well, first21 let's leave it like that for the moment.22 Mr. DeFeo, you see in the screen there are three23 square areas. One in the top center, one on the left24 bottom and one in the middle right, do you see those?25 32 Yes.1 A. Okay.2 Q. Those are the crosshatched areas on the printed3 exhibit and that represents the areas they surveyed in4 2007 to 2010, right?5 Yes.6 A. And so on the actual exhibit when you zero in on7 Q. it, they're diagonal lines, they're not crosshatched,8 they're diagonal lines. So these three squares, those9 are the 10,000, I'm assuming it's meters as well, square10 meters?11 I think they have it as 10,000 square feet.12 A. I don't know whether it is or not. Let's assume13 Q. feet for the sake of argument. All right.14 Okay.15 A. Those are the 10,000 square foot areas that you16 Q. referred to earlier, correct?17 Yes.18 A. Okay. Good.19 Q. So now if we could now zoom in on --20 10,000 square feet.21 A. Yeah. So actually if we look at the right side,22 Q. now this is another development plan for single family23 homes, but you can see basically the square area on the24 right side is essentially in, roughly, in the middle of25

9 of 38 sheets Page 33 to 36 of 100 01/08/2025 12:06:06 PM 33 where Building D would be on this present plan. If we1 can move over to the right and up a little bit. So2 that's roughly, that's kind of near the ridge, that's3 roughly where Building D would be in part on the plans,4 right?5 I don't know.6 A. Okay.7 Q. But -- so let's move down to the text on the8 bottom of the document, if you can. Now, if we could --9 let me just open my copy which I can see more easily.10 Now, they find, if you look at, if we could zero in a11 little more on that text. If you could make it a little12 bigger.13 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Afran, are you going14 to make this somewhat cohesive with what we're looking15 at today? If there's not going to be a nexus with16 looking at something because the original plan had17 single family homes, this is not that plan.18 MR. AFRAN: The trees are the same, sir.19 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I'm sorry.20 MR. AFRAN: It's a survey of trees.21 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Right, it's a survey of22 trees, as we see it is an overlay of single family23 homes. So the understanding of the two different24 applications before us, the application before us is one25 34 thing that these trees, that his study shows in the area1 of disturbance. These seem to be outside the area of2 disturbance for today. I just want to see if there's a3 nexus somewhere that we can say, I'm relating it because4 of this.5 MR. AFRAN: Well, I certainly think the6 square on the right side is probably the area of7 Building D, but the other two -- and the one in the8 center is probably in the area of disturbance of the9 center building. The one to the far left is probably10 not --11 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Are we going to get to12 something the board can use? Some information we want13 to see or hear.14 MR. AFRAN: If I could, you'll see we're not15 referencing it specifically to the area of disturbance.16 We're looking at the quantum of trees.17 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay.18 MR. AFRAN: That's the purpose.19 MR. PLOCKER: How is that relevant for these20 proceedings?21 MR. AFRAN: Because -- well, that's why Mr.22 DeFeo is here.23 MR. PLOCKER: Well, it seems like it doesn't24 like the tree number in the ordinance, which is in the25 35 ordinance, which could have been challenged. We're not1 here to challenge ordinances or question the propriety2 of the zoning ordinance.3 MR. AFRAN: I don't know if Mr.

ordinance, which is in the25 35 ordinance, which could have been challenged. We're not1 here to challenge ordinances or question the propriety2 of the zoning ordinance.3 MR. AFRAN: I don't know if Mr. Plocker's4 referring to --5 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: We'll give some latitude.6 The board has to hear how it's relevant. Go along,7 we'll see if the board finds more information that is8 relevant.9 MR. AFRAN: Yeah, I'm sorry, if we could10 just zero in as much as possible. We only need the11 numbers, if we could. The whole thing, if we move12 across we need it large enough to see. If we could now13 move over to the left. We'll start with the left side.14 Now, I just want to clarify the numbers. Now Mr.15 Q. DeFeo, you said you think this is an invalid study?16 Yes.17 A. I want to introduce the numbers on this study and18 Q. compare them to yours. It's the same forest, right?19 I'm sorry, say that again.20 A. It's the same forest, right?21 Q. The forest, the forest hasn't moved, but it's22 A. certainly evolved in whatever happened in 12 years and23 trees have died.24 Well, you testified several times already there25 Q. 36 was no major die off of trees through observation?1 Other than ash.2 A. Other than ash, right. As far as the rest of the3 Q. forest goes it's a stable forest at this point?4 Stagnant. You keep saying stable, I'll tell you5 A. it's stagnant.6 But no major die off as you testified, correct?7 Q. Except for ash.8 A. Whatever trees were noted, other than say bore9 Q. ash as an occasionally casualty, in 2007 and 2010, they10 should still be there today, all though may have grown11 bigger, fair to say?12 Possibly. I have no way of knowing.13 A. Well, you said there was no major die off on this14 Q. site, so the trees that were there in that period15 probably are still there today, isn't that fair to say?16 Again, I have no way of knowing. I haven't seen17 A. individual trees. You're asking me to be clairvoyant18 and telling you what the exact trees are in a given plot19 on a map that's statistically invalid.20 I didn't ask you about exact trees in any map. I21 Q. simply said to you, if it's true as you said that22 there's been no major die back of trees on this site23 over the last decades --24 Other than bore ash.25 A.

01/08/2025 12:06:06 PM Page 37 to 40 of 100 10 of 38 sheets 37 Other than bore ash we heard. Then the trees1 Q. that were there on the 2010 survey probably are still2 there, isn't that a fair statement?3 Possibly. Sure, probably. Maybe. That's why we4 A. did an independent tree study in 2019 to make certain5 that we had accurate data. This document is completely6 inaccurate and therefore I discount every bit of data in7 there.8 Even though you never spoke to anybody who did9 Q. the survey?10 Doesn't matter. It's a statistically invalid11 A. document because it did not study sufficient quantity of12 areas, nor does it give you the calculation methodology13 nor anything else. Simple fact is when you have14 something that uses such a very small nonrandomized, as15 far as I can tell, system it is statistically invalid16 and therefore I discount this.17 Can I go to my question now?18 Q. It's your time.19 A. Now, you projected 211 trees per acre on average,20 Q. isn't that correct?21 I think it was 212, but it's been a while since I22 A. looked at that sheet. 212.23 212. Okay.24 Q. Now, on the basis of that, you calculated for the25 38 entire property 25,440 trees, is that correct?1 I would have to look at the slide to give you2 A. that. Hang on. Sounds about right.3 I'm reading it from your slide?4 Q. I'll take your word for it, you wouldn't lie to5 A. me.6 Now, that was your count of 4 inch trees and7 Q. greater?8 Correct.9 A. Now, this study, if you look on the document,10 Q. came up with an average of 558 trees per acre, you see11 that?12 I do.13 A. Okay.14 Q. So that's almost three times larger than your15 average calculation, correct?16 Yeah.17 A. Now, they yield a total of 63,36l trees in a18 Q. range between 2 inches and 6 inches. And they reveal a19 total of 20,666 trees 6 inches and higher, for a total,20 and I've done the math, I don't think it's on there, but21 those two figures together equals 84,027 trees?22 I'll believe your math.23 A. What happened to 60,000 trees?24 Q. This report is statistically invalid and25 A. 39 therefore -- you familiar with GIGO, garbage in, garbage1 out? There's garbage data in and garbage data out. I2 do not give any credibility to this report because the3 data is flawed. The methodology is flawed. The study4 area is flawed. Ergo it is statistically invalid and5 therefore it has -- these numbers are meaningless.6 Why is