June 23, 2025 Planning Board Special Meeting Transcript - WEHI

5 of 21 sheets Page 17 to 20 of 52 07/19/2025 07:03:47 AM 17 Okay.1 Q. Do you have any degree in subjects such as air2 emissions and pollution?3 No.4 A. So you have some courses that touch on the5 Q. environment as a planner, just as lawyers will have6 common law class, doesn't make us all constitutional7 lawyers, does it?8 Right. Planners are known as the "great9 A. generalists" because we rely on specialties of others.10 Okay. Thank you very much. That's very helpful.11 Q. Now, you testified a few times that this plan is12 good because it allows for sprawl, to just generalize13 what you said. Now, there are three main buildings14 here, right?15 Yes.16 A. And there's a fourth for some reason none of17 Q. really know, there's a animal hospital in the project.18 That's a fourth building, correct?19 Yes.20 A. Now, Building D is pretty far off to the side on21 Q. the project, isn't it? And there's a considerable space22 between that and the other two buildings, right?23 Yes.24 A. So that's actually sprawl in a very real sense,25 Q. 18 because we're not concentrating these buildings1 together, we're actually using up much more of the land2 to accommodate Building C way off to the side, isn't3 that true?4 In my opinion the applicant has done a good job5 A. of concentrating the buildings in pockets, developable6 pockets on the site and connecting them by a road7 network, which I believe is not sprawl. Again, that's8 consistent with centralized cluster planning.9 Right. If you have one pocket here and one10 Q. pocket here, and one pocket here, you're spreading out11 the development, aren't you?12 The development is connected but I don't, I would13 A. not qualify it as spread out.14 Okay.15 Q. So your feeling is that Building D for example,16 is not sprawl, representing sprawl and the animal17 hospital in the far end is not sprawl. You think this18 is a development that's compact and makes good use of19 land, is that your testimony?20 That is my testimony, yes.21 A. Thank you.22 Q. You say there's a minimal land disturbance of the23 project. You said that several times in your testimony24 if you recall that. Do you recall that?25 19 Yes, I do.1 A. Well, let me ask you, this is going to consume2 Q. about one third of the site, isn't it?3 That's correct.4 A. And in fact it's going to, in consuming that one5 Q. third, it's actually going to clearcut that entire6 third,

this is going to consume2 Q. about one third of the site, isn't it?3 That's correct.4 A. And in fact it's going to, in consuming that one5 Q. third, it's actually going to clearcut that entire6 third, isn't it?7 Yes.8 A. Well, how is clearcutting one third of a forest9 Q. minimal land disturbance?10 It's preserving -- it's preserving in the public11 A. realm, 90 acres of connected vegetative land, which may12 not have otherwise been realized with a different type13 of design scheme, such as a residential subdivision.14 Correct. Well, there was a residential15 Q. subdivision provided by the developer here in 2006 which16 was rejected by the board.17 Yes.18 A. MR. PLOCKER: And which the applicant19 prevailed in a Prerogative Writ in the Superior Court.20 Just for the record.21 MR. AFRAN: It wasn't built, was it?22 So what we have now is a plan that consumes one23 Q. third of the forest, isn't that correct?24 It does.25 A. 20 Now, did you hear the testimony of any of the1 Q. objectors witnesses?2 Yes.3 A. Now, they testified -- Mr. DeVito testified for4 Q. example, that the actual effect of this project is going5 to create edge which is going to consume virtually all6 of those two side forests that are being -- that you say7 will be preserved. Do you remember that testimony?8 Yes.9 A. And he says that what's going to be left is tiny10 Q. slivers of actual core forest on each side, and we might11 have it here, but there's a diagram that shows two very12 small residual fractions of forest that will be left as13 core forest. Now, if what he says is true and virtually14 all of the core forest on the site is gone, except maybe15 seven percent or nine percent, whatever he said it was,16 would you still say that's minimal land disturbance?17 In my mind, yes. Again, in consideration of what18 A. could otherwise be realized on a different type of19 development scheme.20 Well, how could you possibly do more disturbance21 Q. than losing 91 percent of the forest?22 Again, we are --23 A. MR. PLOCKER: Objection to the term, losing24 90 percent of the forest.25