August 13 2025, Planning Board Special Meeting Transcript - WEHI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 31 not near a steep slope compared to where my property is located, do you think that the impact of the excavation process would be greater or equal based on the location of the development and relative to my property? THE WITNESS: There's more opportunity -- I'm sorry. There's more opportunity for -- I mean, obviously because there's a slope there, there's more opportunity for failure to occur as opposed to being further back or in an area that is relatively flat. THE PUBLIC: Okay. And in terms of that failure, what does that look like? Is it damage to the foundation, is it causing structural -- THE WITNESS: Of your home? THE PUBLIC: Correct. THE WITNESS: I don't know, but, you know, if there was a slope failure means rock that would slide down and toward your house, depending where the failure was. If it was in that more eastern corner toward 15, it would be -- it would go toward your house. How far would it go, I don't know. But, yeah, sure, if fragments of rock got to your house it would cause some damage. THE PUBLIC: Okay. And in terms of just a follow up to the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 32 prior persons question. In terms of the Planning Board, whose responsibility would that be if there is damage to the homes if you guys approve this development? THE WITNESS: I can't answer that. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you. Would any other members of the public have questions, please come up and be identified? THE PUBLIC: Rachel Klein, Howell Drive. Based on your -- so if there's slope failure you indicated it would be possibly rocks falling and damage to the homes. Would there be a warning or this is something we could, oh, like a couple rocks are falling, so somethings going on there. Is there a way to get ourselves, you know, to safety or not have to worry about getting ourselves to safety if this fails or if this goes through? You know, looking towards the future to this building sitting on the slope right above our homes where our children -- where they play, live. THE WITNESS: It's not -- it's not easy to predict in terms of, for example whether it would be a slow sudden -- is the material -- the material on the surface, if the soil material would fail, it would likely, what's called a slump and it would kind of flow down the hill, so you'd probably get, probably get a few minutes of warning. If it's the rock failure, usually

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 33 rock failures are pretty sudden. THE PUBLIC: So my ten-year old, eight-year old, five-year old, they have plenty of time to get to safety if this failed or possibly not? THE WITNESS: I can't answer that. THE PUBLIC: You don't know, right? THE WITNESS: I don't know. THE PUBLIC: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you. Any other member of the public have a questions, please come up and be identified? You have three minutes. THE PUBLIC: Seth Weisleder, 17 Howell Drive. I'm as concerned as my neighbors are, I have lived in my house for three years. 15 and 17 are really close, 200 feet almost from the corner of the building in Building D. When we get heavy rain, water already runs towards their property. I am not an engineer but I have a few questions if things should fail. If part of the slope were to give way, even a small section, would the soil, rock or water reach our homes? THE WITNESS: It's possible. THE PUBLIC: Has any study been done to show

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 34 exactly how far the slope material could travel if failure could happen in the section towards Howell Drive? THE WITNESS: I don't think that an analysis had been done for that. I did not do that analysis. THE PUBLIC: Could an analysis be done? THE WITNESS: Rock falls are usually from a cliff, it's usually a little easier, there's guidance documents for that, but the slides are a little trickier to model. It's not something that could readily be calculated. THE PUBLIC: So I know the last three years that I lived here, in a very short period of time we had at least one 100 year storms a couple of times. I don't know what we would call them now, but we saw fast moving water down towards Howell Drive. If we have any more storms like this and the extra water weight on the slope, could it more likely make it to fail? THE WITNESS: Yes. I mean, water whenever you, when you introduce water or higher, you know, for example, it elevates groundwater or you get a sudden rush of water to basically both add weight to the slope, which increases the failure forces that are trying to push the slope down, but also acts sort of as a lubricant once it gets into the interstitial spaces to

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 35 create a slide. THE PUBLIC: And what about the additional shaking of the earth, could that exacerbate a rock slope failure too? THE WITNESS: Of course. Yes. THE PUBLIC: Did your model account for any changes over time, like soil getting weaker or wetter after more and more years of storms? THE WITNESS: No, we used the existing conditions that were obtained by Langan. THE PUBLIC: But could a study be done to show those modeling and what could happen to the slope in ten years from now, five years from now? THE WITNESS: No. The only thing you could do is, as we did, is a sensitivity analysis. You know, lowering parameters, looking at changing the different parameters of the model, seeing if, you know, certain conditions of rock becomes less cohesive or soil less cohesive with itself and if it, you know, it could -- and then you'd lower those parameters and remodel it. But that's basically what we do. Timing, the time value of that, I don't know. That's not something I am an expert at. THE PUBLIC: And so you mentioned a lot of safety factors in your testimony. Did that number

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 36 account for the fact that gravity, and you account for the actual gravity of the sliding material downhill towards our neighborhood? THE WITNESS: Well, it just looks at the resisting versus the pushing load. The failure load. It just looks at the two to see if they're balanced or not. THE PUBLIC: Right. So these models were done without construction. Construction adds weight, adds vibration to the top of the slope that's presently being right on that line. How does that affect the chance of it moving down hill faster or quicker? THE WITNESS: Well, no, that's not necessarily true. There's a -- just trying to read it so I read it properly. So when you're looking at the diagram it's D. So it's basically -- it's a factor of like how much construction is impacting the site. Langan did assume that there will be, you know, somewhat construction impacted, as well as we also assumed the same. So if you use a number one in the model it assumed that there's a disturbance going on. My big disagreement was with the GSI, which is something that it -- actually the two together actually sort of magnify each other. So if you're using a high GSI it artificially lowers the potential factors of safe, or

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 37 increase the factors of safety. But when you combine them there's actually the combined affect. So they did look at -- they did look at potential construction, but they didn't look at the actual quality of the rock. THE PUBLIC: Mr. Chairman, may I -- CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: One more, please. THE PUBLIC: I can return. Can I return? CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Go ahead. THE PUBLIC: I'll be quick. So from seeing boring logs is there anything that would guarantee the families on Howell Drives home safety if construction would -- changes the slope? THE WITNESS: I can't guarantee you anything on that. THE PUBLIC: Obviously you talked about extra protection, reenforcements, but doing construction on the slope you take away trees, doesn't that -- what affect would that have on water coming down the slope? Does that create another issue? THE WITNESS: Sorry. If you take away vegetation, roots, things like that, it's more exposed to a rainfall, yea, you get more erosion and instability. THE PUBLIC: Final question. If you live where I live and 15 and more 17, with your property

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 38 directly below the slope, would you be comfortable with this plan moving forward? THE WITNESS: That's -- I mean, probably not. I would be more comfortable if there was some type of activity that made it stable or more stable, but I don't see that in the application material. THE PUBLIC: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you. Come right up and state your name and three minutes. THE PUBLIC: Hello. My name is Sage Provost. I would just like to remind you that I heard you use the phrase, worst case scenario before. And I would like to say that we've seen worst case scenario happening more and more frequently across the state. And I -- CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I'm sorry, public comment is not tonight. You may ask a question about what he testified to. THE PUBLIC: Okay. Can I say that -- CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: You can say a question about what he testified to tonight. THE PUBLIC: I think that a better question to ask then who is responsible for if something happens

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 39 and there's damage to any property is -- how will those people be held responsibile? And then there should be a plan developed like for how. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: You can ask him a question about what he testified to, please. THE PUBLIC: Okay. I -- is there any way to hold people accountable for how a plan may be developed in the worst case scenario? Or the event of the worst case scenario. THE WITNESS: That's up to the Planning Board. THE PUBLIC: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank very much. Mr. Afran. MR. AFRAN: Thank you. With regard to the last member in there community who spoke. She had a concern to raise which you indicated is properly public comment not during questions. I want to make it clear to the citizens who are here that there is a time later on when she can come back and make those statements. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Absolutely. MR. AFRAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Come right up. State your name. You have three minutes.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 40 THE PUBLIC: Hi. Daniele DePalma, one L. I have a question. I know on of the planners proposed a water tower. As a geological technical engineer from your standpoint, do you think that the wetlands or the ground of the project is sound enough for a water tower to be supported? MR. AFRAN: May I interject. I think there was a comment that a water tower might be needed for some functions, it's not in the plans. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Right. MR. AFRAN: It's not our position that there is a water tower in the plans at present. So perhaps that would help the community members. THE PUBLIC: So if there was going to be one in the -- if the project needed it, would it be support by the ground? THE WITNESS: I would need to do a very detailed geotechnical investigation into the location of that water tower before I make a conclusion. But it's, you know, if, you know, I am not going to make a guess as to that because I don't know the size. I don't know how many gallons, all that stuff definitely adds some load. To support a development this size it would be sizable. THE PUBLIC: And worst case scenario in case