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

9 of 59 sheets Page 33 to 36 of 149 11/19/2025 04:42:31 PM 33 board needs to hear that if these things are satisfied,1 we're not asking the objector to agree, we're asking as2 an expert would those areas be taken into consideration.3 MR. AFRAN: These questions have no4 specificity. You're now saying would what be taken into5 consideration. The questions inherently vague, it's6 asking him to say in advance that a set of tests that7 might or might not be done by the applicant, somehow8 could meet the standards in the profession he says needs9 to be met. How could he possibly say that without10 seeing the tests that are done. It's the applicants11 duty to prove its case. If there's a problem then the12 applicant has to prove it. At that point if the13 applicant meets proper engineering standards, and my14 expert has no further statement, then the objector might15 very well say, we have no issue there. But to ask a man16 in advance before the tests are done to say those tests17 would satisfy him, how could he do that. As an example18 he says, suppose ten show mottling and ten don't, how is19 he supposed to say in advance whether the methodology is20 correct. He might, again, say there's no notation for21 color as he testified to. How could he know in advance22 to answer this question.23 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Then the answer would be24 he can't, as opposed to, and I specifically said, if25 34 everything is done to his satisfaction, so take that for1 English. His satisfaction, all tests are done, he2 looked at everything, if his firm did it he would be3 satisfied with the results based on the testing and the4 methodology used. So if everything was done to his5 satisfaction on the four points that were brought up in6 his testimony today. Simple question, hypothetically.7 MR. AFRAN: It's not a simple question8 because what is his satisfaction. An expert has to see9 the methodology used in the set of tests before he knows10 he could be satisfied. A standard of care in any11 profession requires seeing what is done. One can't12 announce in advance they would accept the set of tests.13 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: So an expert can, as he14 testified, present a set of facts and then say these are15 the requirements of the tests. He is an expert, he can16 set up the requirements.17 MR. AFRAN: This question appears to be18 designed to lock this man into something before expert19 analysis

ese are15 the requirements of the tests. He is an expert, he can16 set up the requirements.17 MR. AFRAN: This question appears to be18 designed to lock this man into something before expert19 analysis by the applicant is put in.20 MS. McGOVERN: Yes, the answer could be, I21 don't know. The answer can be, there are to many22 variables, I can't give you an answer. It was just a23 simple question.24 MR. AFRAN: It was not a simple question. I25 35 preserve my objection.1 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: You preserve your2 objection, great.3 So you can answer any way you can sir, you4 are the expert.5 MR. MacNEILL: Mr. Chairman, if I could just6 clarify.7 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. MacNeill.8 MR. MacNEILL: So really all I'm asking is,9 as the objecting engineering if they agree to comply10 with any comments that remain in your letter, would you11 have any further issues or would you agree that the12 storm -- as it relates to stormwater management only,13 would you agree that they have fully met your concerns?14 MR. AFRAN: Same objection.15 MR. MacNEILL: I have no further questions,16 Mr. Chairman.17 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. Mr. Walsh, thank18 you.19 MR. AFRAN: Mr. Walsh, are you able to20 answer the question?21 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay.22 MR. AFRAN: No, he's been presented with23 what I said was an improper question, I'll argue to24 that. Mr. Chairman, you said the questions proper, now25 36 there's a question not yet answered. I would ask my1 witness, do you feel you can answer the question put to2 you by the board's engineer?3 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: If you feel you can,4 answer it. If you feel you can't, say there's not5 enough information, you can't answer the question.6 THE WITNESS: I will give a little bit of a7 mixed answer, if you don't mind.8 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Sure.9 THE WITNESS: Some of the comments in the TC10 calcs it means they're going to go back and run11 everything as per the standard and it all works, I mean,12 there are trickle down effects to the results of those13 TC calculations and increased volume and peak flow14 calculations. So, yes, there's -- for those mistakes or15 alternate methods they use the standard methods, then,16 yeah, there's a chance that we could find it. I don't17 know what the trickle down effects of those are, I think18 they will actually trigger design and layout changes.19 For the mottling, I think it's a little to complicated.20 I would -- it's -- the

't17 know what the trickle down effects of those are, I think18 they will actually trigger design and layout changes.19 For the mottling, I think it's a little to complicated.20 I would -- it's -- the thing that causes me pause is the21 scenario if they dig 20 and ten are good and ten are22 bad, then it's like well, to my gut I'd say well, then23 you should dig more, but that's not the answer you want.24 So --25