October 29, 2025, Planning Board Special Meeting - WEHI Transcript

7 of 59 sheets Page 25 to 28 of 149 11/19/2025 04:42:31 PM 25 Regarding soil testing. It is important to1 note that the submitted reports were prepared and signed2 by a licensed geotechnical engineer contracted by the3 applicant. CME did not perform or witness any of the4 soil testing and if any conflicts arise during5 construction regarding the seasonal high water table6 elevation, the applicant remains responsible to7 remediate accordingly. If major design changes are8 required the applicant would be required to return to9 the board to obtain amended approval.10 Finally, I'll end with one question for Mr.11 Walsh. Assuming the applicant agrees to address the12 final technical comments outlined within their latest13 report will your office issue a letter stating that you14 have no further objections with the development as it15 relates to stormwater management?16 MR. AFRAN: Well, I'm going to raise an17 objection.18 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Hold it. He asked a19 question of someone who testified. Please let him20 answer, if he can.21 MR. AFRAN: Just a moment, if I can. A22 question put to a witness is subject to an objection by23 counsel to the case. I am quite competent to raise an24 objection under the rules. My objection is very simply25 26 that it is a hypothetical question. We don't know what1 the applicant will say and it's impossible to ask an2 engineer now to say whether he will withdraw his3 comments based on things we have no idea will be4 presented later. It's a hypothetical question.5 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I think he asked an6 objective question. If the applicant does everything7 that's in the letter -- Mr. MacNeill, would you restate8 that for the record so it's clear. If he does9 everything --10 MR. MacNEILL: Yeah, in my opinion it is a11 simple question. If the applicant would agree to12 address the final comments, I count it as four comments13 remaining, mottling, time of concentration, groundwater14 mounding and the sanitary sewer line. So four comments15 remain out of 12 that was initially provided on the16 previous report. If they address those remaining17 comments will your office have any further objections to18 the development and will you issue a letter stating19 same?20 MR. AFRAN: And that's the nature of my21 objection. We have no idea how the applicant will22 address those matters. Merely because the applicant23 talks about them in the future

tter stating19 same?20 MR. AFRAN: And that's the nature of my21 objection. We have no idea how the applicant will22 address those matters. Merely because the applicant23 talks about them in the future doesn't mean that the24 engineer standing next to me, our witness, can possibly25 27 say whether he would agree with those. The questions1 simply calling for speculation by the witness. Now Mr.2 Chairman, it's your discretion to allow a question, I'm3 simply raising the objection.4 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. MacNeill, do you mean5 if he responds to them and or modifies them, based on6 Mr. Walsh's testimony, to Mr. Walsh's satisfaction,7 would that be what you mean?8 MR. MacNEILL: Exactly. If the applicant9 addressed the final comments in the letter would you10 have any additional objection to the development as it11 relates to the stormwater management?12 MR. AFRAN: Again, it's the same question.13 How will the applicant address those comments, my14 witness can't say whether he would agree or disagree15 until he sees how the applicant addresses those16 comments.17 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I think what he said --18 I'll restate it, correct me if I am wrong. I am trying19 to get to an end. Sounds like he's saying, if the20 applicant does it to his satisfaction --21 MS. McGOVERN: Is there anything else he22 objects to?23 MR. CARDOZA: To your satisfaction. So if24 he were to review them and say, yes, I would like these25 28 proposed fixes --1 MR. AFRAN: Well, I think that's what you do2 after the applicant addresses it. You don't ask now in3 advance will he agree.4 MS. McGOVERN: It's a hypothetical question.5 MR. AFRAN: Yes, that's my point.6 MS. McGOVERN: That's okay. It's okay to7 ask a hypothetical question.8 MR. AFRAN: No, no, no, Ms. McGovern, a9 hypothetical question is when you --10 MS. McGOVERN: It's within the --11 MR. AFRAN: -- pose a factual scenario about12 facts on the ground, not when you ask a witness will you13 agree in advance to certify something by way of an14 answer that's not even presented. That's not a15 hypothetical.16 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Hypothetically if all the17 requirements are satisfied from what he just said need18 to be corrected, he's an expert, he said these things19 need to be corrected. So it's hypothetical.20 MR. AFRAN: That's a different question.21 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: If it is corrected to his22 satisfaction, that was the question Mr. MacNeill

aid these things19 need to be corrected. So it's hypothetical.20 MR. AFRAN: That's a different question.21 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: If it is corrected to his22 satisfaction, that was the question Mr. MacNeill asked.23 MR. AFRAN: Your question, with respect, is24 better. Because you're saying if everything's corrected25