December 11, 2024 Planning Board Special Meeting Transcript - WEHI

01/08/2025 12:06:06 PM Page 45 to 48 of 100 12 of 38 sheets 45 MR. AFRAN: No, I'm not saying that at all.1 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I'm trying to understand.2 MR. AFRAN: What we have on the screen is3 the 2010 study for a subdivision of, let's call it 1504 houses for sake of argument. Obviously the disturbance5 goes throughout the site. What we have here in the6 current development plan is an area of disturbance of7 roughly in the center of the forest.8 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Lower concentration.9 MR. AFRAN: Correct.10 So there's a different area of disturbance on the11 current plan versus the one from 2010.12 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Agreed.13 MR. AFRAN: However, our purpose is not to14 compare the two developments. Our purpose is to show15 that there's another study that this developer did that16 shows three times more trees on this site than Mr. DeFeo17 identified.18 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I understand.19 MR. AFRAN: That's where we're going.20 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I understand that. But we21 have to agree that these are in areas of disturbance for22 that plan?23 MR. AFRAN: They're not disturbed areas,24 they were forest then and they're forest now. That's25 46 the difference in terminology. They would've been1 disturbed on that plan.2 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Yes.3 MR. AFRAN: Correct. Just like the areas of4 disturbance here will be disturbed if it's ever done.5 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: So both would have been6 disturbed because neither one is disturbed at this time7 but both, if done, would have been disturbed?8 MR. AFRAN: Correct. But that's not really9 relevant to counting trees.10 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: That's okay. I'm trying11 to understand where we're going.12 MR. AFRAN: Yeah.13 COUNCIL PRESIDENT RUTHERFORD: Mr. Chair, I14 have a question.15 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Yes, sir. Council16 President Rutherford.17 COUNCIL PRESIDENT RUTHERFORD: Mr. DeFeo,18 you said that there needs to be a 4 to 5 percent area of19 study in order for the study to be valid, at least20 that's my recollection of your earlier testimony?21 THE WITNESS: That's correct. Unless22 there's a running mean methodology utilized, which this23 study did.24 COUNCIL PRESIDENT RUTHERFORD: When you25 47 testified about that, it seemed too me like once you1 came back to your actual calculation of 2.2 percent,2 which would be less than the 4 to 5 percent you claimed3 would be necessary for the study to be valid?4 THE WITNESS: But as I also stated

nce you1 came back to your actual calculation of 2.2 percent,2 which would be less than the 4 to 5 percent you claimed3 would be necessary for the study to be valid?4 THE WITNESS: But as I also stated then,5 however, it's a however, you would do that unless you're6 running a mean calculation that specifies I don't need7 to do more study because nothings changing8 statistically. So a running a mean says you don't have9 to get to that number.10 COUNCIL PRESIDENT RUTHERFORD: Okay. By11 running mean you mean as you analyze you have one then12 analyze the second and third and as you get that mean it13 stays within a certain number of variance you don't need14 to go further?15 THE WITNESS: Correct. And you look at it16 statistically and if it has a high level of confidence17 you don't need to keep going and doing that work.18 COUNCIL PRESIDENT RUTHERFORD: Okay.19 Now, the follow-up question would be to you,20 Mr. Afran. Do you have the methodology that was used21 for this 2010 study?22 MR. AFRAN: I do not have that. And my23 purpose is simply to show there's two studies with24 vastly different numbers of trees.25 48 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: So that's the reason of1 diversion. We want to hear somehow there's one site2 that shows X amount of trees and one site shows more3 than X amount of trees?4 MR. AFRAN: That's correct. That's our5 purpose. That's our purpose.6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.7 MR. AFRAN: And we'll have our own experts8 later in the case, but our purpose right now is to show,9 since Mr. DeFeo is here, I don't want to make him keep10 coming back unless he plans to be here.11 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay.12 Now Mr. DeFeo, in terms of the 22 study areas on13 Q. your study, how many of those study areas did you14 actually count and include in your final results?15 I'm sorry, how many --16 A. You said there was about 22 study areas you17 Q. studied, 10 by 10 plots.18 Yeah.19 A. How many of those study areas did you actually20 Q. include in your final calculation and results?21 The 22 is what was used in the final calculations22 A. and results. There were 50 plots actually put on the23 site by the computer, but 22 were actually physically24 surveyed.25