February 26, 2025, Planning Board Special Meeting Transcript - WEHI

03/03/2025 06:36:47 AM Page 69 to 72 of 115 18 of 46 sheets 69 specific detail.1 MR. KLEIN: Right.2 MR. RIZZO: I don't want to say one way or3 the other.4 MR. KLEIN: At this point do you agree with5 or disagree with Mr. Walsh, knowing what he said and6 what you have seen so far, or is it really Mr. Hess?7 MR. RIZZO: It's really Mr. Hess. I am not8 sure it's going to be one grand total yes or total no.9 I think maybe some points are probably valid but, again,10 there's a ton of gray area of this stuff and you could11 have ten different people review it and come up with ten12 totally different sets of comments. As you see with the13 DEP, you know, there's lots of things they miss in their14 rules, so, or potentially missed. But like I mentioned,15 we're going to take these notes back to Mr. Hess, he16 will verify them.17 MR. KLEIN: What do you think about the18 sanitary sewer line going through the, under the road,19 where that's going to be?20 MR. RIZZO: Yeah. I agree, that's probably21 not typical.22 MR. KLEIN: Even if it's PVC piping which23 doesn't leak as much as concrete.24 MR. RIZZO: Probably be either way. You25 70 could even have groundwater entering into the sewer1 system.2 MR. KLEIN: Right.3 MR. RIZZO: So I think if there's an4 opportunity to relocate it, it should be considered.5 I'm not sure if there's an opportunity but it should be6 looked at. Also I'd want to know the depth, maybe the7 sewer system is deeper, is much deeper than the basin8 and that's probably different.9 MR. KLEIN: Under the road. He shows the10 gray area, right in the gray area.11 MR. RIZZO: It could be changed vertically,12 it could be changed horizontally. I think it should be13 looked at.14 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Anything else, Mr. Rizzo?15 MR. RIZZO: I have nothing else.16 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: If the DEP misses their17 own regulations what's the recourse for the applicant or18 for -- if the DEP misses it's own regulation what's the19 recourse of the applicant or the objector?20 MS. McGOVERN: Or this board.21 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Or this board.22 MR. RIZZO: It sounds like they've gone back23 to the DEP and I'm not sure about stance, I don't want24 to speak for them. I'm sure the board is -- not the25 71 board, but the towns engineers responsible for review1 but it's really the applicants responsibility at the end2 of the day to own the design that they designed and3 signed off on. So I'd

not the25 71 board, but the towns engineers responsible for review1 but it's really the applicants responsibility at the end2 of the day to own the design that they designed and3 signed off on. So I'd say probably the applicant, then4 the town and DEP are equal responsibile as far as review5 goes.6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. Thank you.7 So at this time I'm going to have members of8 the public come up, ask questions of Mr. Walsh. I want9 to preference this by saying, you heard how the board10 asked questions. The board did not testify. The board11 did not tell stories. Ask a question of the information12 provided or I will ask you to stop speaking. Questions13 start with if, when, what, how, which, does it. But use14 the way the board asked questions as to the way to ask15 questions. Okay.16 If everybody can be quiet so we can hear,17 everybody in the room can hear the questions.18 The person standing.19 THE PUBLIC: Thank you very much.20 MR. AFRAN: Mr. Chairman, I think we have21 one microphone so I will give it to members of the22 public who might have to give it back to Mr. Walsh.23 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I'm going to limit24 questions to three minutes. So Joe can you put three25 72 minutes on the clock.1 We well keep it. I'm on it.2 THE PUBLIC: I'm Victor Misarti,3 M-I-S-A-R-T-I, and I have a question about this4 stormwater discharge.5 One of your site plans you showed that there6 was, it was calculated to be one point of discharge but7 you're saying it was actually two. So here's my8 question. On one of the other site plans that you were9 showing, you were showing that a lot of water was not10 going into that system, it was going to the west, to the11 left directly into the stream and then to the east to12 the, right directly down that hill. Down the mountain.13 So my question is, shouldn't that discharge be14 calculated as well? Like why just the two pipes.15 THE WITNESS: So they are only testing16 disturbed areas. Basically it's simplified if you were17 looking to include that, but what they're basically18 doing, they're saying we're going to hold that as steady19 and we're going to show only the disturbed area that's20 where the change would be. So it showed a reduction and21 those changed areas, so they're not counting those other22 areas, there's a totally normal thing they can do. Just23 kind of to simplify the analysis. I think you would24 agree with me on

uction and21 those changed areas, so they're not counting those other22 areas, there's a totally normal thing they can do. Just23 kind of to simplify the analysis. I think you would24 agree with me on that.25