December 11, 2024 Planning Board Special Meeting Transcript - WEHI

01/08/2025 12:06:06 PM Page 5 to 8 of 100 2 of 38 sheets 5 Mr. Afran, you're up, sir.1 MR. AFRAN: Thank you. Give me one moment.2 Good evening. I'm sorry I'm late.3 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. No problem. We4 understand.5 MR. AFRAN: Huge amount of rain and traffic.6 We're not going to be very long, we're7 finishing essentially with cross, so. I realize there's8 nothing else tonight on this case but we won't be that9 long.10 I'm sorry, just need one more minute.11 Mr. DeFeo, good evening.12 Q. Good evening. How are you, sir?13 A. Good. How are you?14 Q. Before I go further, did you have a chance to15 look at that exhibit we posted --16 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. DeFeo, you're reminded17 you are under oath.18 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.19 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.20 I'm sorry, go right ahead, Mr. Afran.21 My voice is not so good so I may not be able to22 Q. project too much.23 So Mr. DeFeo, did you have a chance to look at24 the tree plan that was posted, I'm referring to at the25 6 last meeting?1 If you are referencing -- what plan specifically,2 A. the one that you posted on the website?3 Right. It was from 2010.4 Q. Yes.5 A. MR. PLOCKER: Can we mark it if it hasn't6 been marked. Just so there's a clear record.7 MR. AFRAN: Absolutely.8 MR. PLOCKER: I'm not sure if it was or not.9 MR. AFRAN: It wasn't offered yet, so we10 didn't have it marked yet.11 MS. McGOVERN: That would be O-2 -- 3, I'm12 sorry. Tree plan, and what's the date on that?13 MR. AFRAN: Just call it 2010 Tree Plan.14 MS. McGOVERN: Okay.15 (2010 Tree Plan is marked as Exhibit O-3 for16 identification.)17 MR. AFRAN: It has other information but I18 think that's sufficient.19 MS. McGOVERN: That's your purpose for it,20 right?21 MR. AFRAN: Yeah. And as I noted in my22 communication, we're not offering it for purposes of the23 application -- the development application is a part of24 that. That was the 2010 proposal. We're using it for25 7 the tree plan information and the only other relevant1 information on the document would be the test sites that2 are marked out in the cross hatching. But the actual3 development plan, which you was a single family housing4 project, has no relevance to what we're saying, so.5 So you had a chance to look that over?6 Q. I have.7 A. Okay.8 Q. Have you ever seen that before it was posted?9 No.10 A. Okay.11 Q. Now, when you did your work in terms of the, you12 did -- your tree

So you had a chance to look that over?6 Q. I have.7 A. Okay.8 Q. Have you ever seen that before it was posted?9 No.10 A. Okay.11 Q. Now, when you did your work in terms of the, you12 did -- your tree survey was in 2019, what was the year13 for it?14 2019.15 A. That was where those spot checks were done, that16 Q. was the year 2019, correct?17 Correct.18 A. Now, when you did that what other tree surveys19 Q. for this property had you been familiar with?20 I'm not certain I understand the question.21 A. Well, at the time you supervised the 2019 survey,22 Q. had you been familiar with any other tree surveys or23 tree plans for this property?24 No, it wouldn't have been relevant even if I had.25 A. 8 I didn't know of any.1 Why wouldn't they be relevant in your opinion?2 Q. In my opinion because I was asked to look at this3 A. property for the first time in terms of doing an4 analysis, therefore I would've developed and utilized5 our own methodologies and done a use study, a study that6 was current, because it would've been relevant to the7 site plan as it was proposed.8 Well, the trees on the site are on the site9 Q. regardless of what plan someone's proposing. So why10 wouldn't looking at an earlier tree survey not be11 relevant?12 It would depend how the survey was done. You're13 A. asking relevance, did I look at this particular14 submission. First, this is a statistically invalid set15 of data. There is nothing in this form exhibit, I16 believe we called O-3.17 MS. McGOVERN: Yes.18 O-3, yes.19 Q. Exhibit O-3 is statistically flawed. It does not20 A. meet the standards of a forest tree study in any way,21 shape are form, either statistically or in methodology.22 There is no methodology provided within what I have.23 Therefore, even if I had seen it I would have rejected24 it out of hand. This particular study used three plots25