June 23, 2025 Planning Board Special Meeting Transcript - WEHI

07/19/2025 07:03:47 AM Page 37 to 40 of 52 10 of 21 sheets 37 impression is left from that testimony based on things1 that really weren't in the witnesses purview and that's2 why cross examination is necessary.3 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: The board has an4 understanding what's been going on and the board5 understands there was a settlement agreement and we are6 not a participant in it. The outcome of the settlement7 agreement is what we're working with.8 MR. AFRAN: Well, I don't know if you know9 what everyone on the board is thinking, of course, but10 my only point was to test what the witness meant by11 saying the neighbors had settled. Because if that12 implication is left with the board, it's a false one.13 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay.14 Mr. McDonough, do you know the term15 neighbors, what that referenced?16 THE WITNESS: I don't know. I don't know17 the details of the settlement agreement.18 Okay. Thank you.19 Q. You mentioned that, "Unless the RSIS de minimus20 waiver is granted there will be an undue hardship21 because of peculiar conditions pertaining to the22 development in question." I am quoting that. What23 undue hardship and what peculiar conditions were you24 referring to?25 38 I have to remember the context of what I said.1 A. But, again, I was relying upon the testimony of our2 expert traffic consultant that the design with the loop,3 less than the one thousand ADT due to the closure of4 Kusic would not violate the intent of the RSIS and that5 language is in there.6 All right. But I'm asking -- well no, if the7 Q. language is in there then there has to be a showing of8 evidence to support those conditions. So I am asking,9 what is the undue hardship and what are the peculiar10 conditions, if you know? And you used those phrases, so11 I'm asking what was meant or you know about that.12 I will fall back on the settlement agreement,13 A. that the particular or peculiar circumstances are that14 there was an agreement in place and that would cause an15 undue hardship to break that agreement.16 And if I could probe further. There would be an17 Q. undue -- are you saying that to -- strike that.18 I'll move on. Thank you. You answered my19 question.20 MR. AFRAN: I just need a minute to review21 my notes. They were partially written while on the22 highway, so it's taking me an extra minute.23 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay.24 You referred to this plan as satisfying the25

just need a minute to review21 my notes. They were partially written while on the22 highway, so it's taking me an extra minute.23 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay.24 You referred to this plan as satisfying the25 Q. 39 standards of the complete streets concept in the town.1 Do you recall that testimony?2 I do.3 A. Now, you also testified that -- let me get to the4 Q. exact reference. You also said you did not know the5 distance that one would walk from the development to the6 nearest public transport. Do you remember saying that7 in response to a member of the publics question?8 I do, yes.9 A. Give me one moment.10 Q. You also said, you were asked, "Are you aware11 that this property is locked in by other properties in12 order to get of any sort of mass transit" and the13 question went on and you said, you don't know. Do you14 recall that?15 I know the property is central to the development16 A. around it so, yes. To get to, I don't know if there's17 any transit on the edge, but my assumption is you would18 have to go beyond the property borders to get to19 transit.20 Well, doesn't complete streets -- what does21 Q. complete streets mean, to your understanding?22 It's to sure pedestrian -- positive pedestrian23 A. circulations, bicycle circulation and amenities and24 vehicular.25 40 So if one -- if you don't know how far one has to1 Q. walk to the nearest mass transit and if there's no2 sidewalk connecting the development to facilities3 outside of it, do you really feel this is complete4 streets?5 In my view this is a pedestrian friendly, bicycle6 A. friendly and vehicular safe plan.7 You base that on say Mr. Pehnke's testimony and8 Q. others?9 Pretty much all the witnesses before me. Mr.10 A. Anderson and Mr. Pehnke, yes.11 Okay.12 Q. So based on what you heard from them you feel13 that it includes those safety issues?14 I do.15 A. Do you know if a -- strike that. I will move on.16 Q. You said that the planner when he or she does17 their work looks comprehensively at the application?18 Yes.19 A. Yet you also said, I think it was in response to20 Q. Mayor Davis's question, that you had not examined the21 impact of stormwater on Essex Fells that would arise22 from this plan, do you remember that?23 I have not personally done a drainage analysis,24 A. no. I know there is a pretty thick engineering25