June 23, 2025 Planning Board Special Meeting Transcript - WEHI

07/19/2025 07:03:47 AM Page 21 to 24 of 52 6 of 21 sheets 21 MR. AFRAN: Well, why don't we do this, I1 can go to that seat Mr. Plocker and Mr. Plocker can come2 here and he can cross examine the witness as he wishes.3 But it's my cross examination.4 MR. PLOCKER: And he's also not an5 ecologist. Mr. DeVito testified, we dealt with it. I6 asked him a couple questions on cross. If he's going to7 ask ecological questions about core forest, let's ask8 him. Voir dire, is he qualified to answer questions on9 the effect of the loss of core forest, as Mr. DeVito put10 it. Or as Mr. Afran is putting it now. I didn't ask11 the question, he can't answer the question.12 First of all, it is not I who introduced the13 Q. subject. It is Mr. McDonough who introduced the subject14 multiple times in direct testimony. It is not I who15 raised the issue that this project only causes minimal16 disturbance. It is the gentleman who's a witness who17 id. So number one -- number one, that is directly18 within the scope of direct examination.19 And number two, because he's describing no20 environmental harm of any major consequence, my21 questions are relevant for that purpose as well.22 MR. PLOCKER: He's asking about -- he's23 giving him data and asking about questions through24 testimony that Mr. DeVito gave and Mr. DeVito had25 22 different credentials than Mr. McDonough.1 MR. AFRAN: I must note that several times2 in Mr. McDonough's testimony he said we have3 controverted -- uncontroverted, uncontroverted expert4 testimony that says there will be no major environmental5 consequence from this project. So clearly Mr. McDonough6 reserved for himself the right to say our witnesses, the7 applicant's, have all said in a uncontroverted manner8 there'll be no harm here. Now, when I have a witness9 who comes on and says, no, no, no, we're going to lose10 91 percent of the forest, virtually nothing left.11 Somehow that's outside of the scope of the witnesses12 testimony, as Mr. Plocker would put it. I would suggest13 Mr. Chairman, this is directly within the scope of the14 type of case they brought to you.15 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Go ahead. Ask direct16 questions. If he can he'll answer the question, if he17 can't answer the question we'll bring another expert to18 answer the question.19 MR. PLOCKER: I renew my objection if this20 is going to be the subject matter. Mr. McDonough is a21 planner,

n, if he17 can't answer the question we'll bring another expert to18 answer the question.19 MR. PLOCKER: I renew my objection if this20 is going to be the subject matter. Mr. McDonough is a21 planner, he's here to look at the ordinance, look at the22 Master Plan. That's what he testified to. I'll -- but23 I guess we'll give Mr. Afran some leeway, but do we24 comply with the ordinance. Do we comply with the Master25 23 Plan. That was Mr. McDonough's domain. If he wants to1 ask him other questions regarding these areas, if you2 can answer it, let's have a blast.3 MR. AFRAN: I didn't introduce on the4 applicant's case repeated statements of no major5 environmental consequence.6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. Go right ahead.7 MR. AFRAN: This is not a matter of giving8 Mr. Afran leeway. It is Mr. Afran's right.9 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Go ahead.10 So would you call losing 91 percent -- forest is11 Q. virtually 100 percent of the site, isn't it?12 Correct. Yes, it is.13 A. Now, would you call a project that leaves over14 Q. only 9 percent of the forest, minimal disturbance?15 Again, this is a project that conforms with the16 A. zoning ordinance that is intended to protect the17 environment and has also pass muster through the18 stewards of environmental protection which would be the19 DEP. So I would say, yes, it does advance environmental20 protection.21 Well, I didn't ask you whether in your view it22 Q. advanced environmental protection. I asked you a simple23 question. If leaving -- if losing almost the entire24 forest and leaving only 9 percent is the effect --25 24 MR. PLOCKER: I'm going to object.1 MR. AFRAN: -- would that be minimal2 disturbance?3 MR. PLOCKER: We're disturbing 27 and half4 acres out of about 120 and a half. That's what the plan5 is.6 MR. AFRAN: I think this constant7 interruption by Mr. Plocker --8 MR. PLOCKER: It's distorting the record.9 MR. AFRAN: No, the record from Mr. DeVito10 and his testimony has as much weight before this board11 as any of the applicant's experts, is that of the core12 forest virtually nothing will be left. And he testified13 very specifically and the witness said he heard that14 testimony.15 MR. PLOCKER: In an area that's not governed16 by the ordinance.17 MR. AFRAN: It's got nothing to do with that18 particular question, whether Mr. Plocker is right or19 wrong and I would dispute it. But the witness himself20 introduced

t governed16 by the ordinance.17 MR. AFRAN: It's got nothing to do with that18 particular question, whether Mr. Plocker is right or19 wrong and I would dispute it. But the witness himself20 introduced repeatedly the testimony that there will be21 no environmental harm. There will be minimal22 disturbance. He said it over and over in his direct23 testimony. This was the core of the case that the24 applicant brought through Mr. McDonough and I don't know25