December 10, 2025, Planning Board Special Meeting - WEHI Transcript

9 of 55 sheets Page 33 to 36 of 144 01/14/2026 10:36:25 AM 33 By phone.1 A. Did you memorialize that discussion in the way2 Q. you say you normally do?3 No.4 A. What did Ms. McGovern say to you?5 Q. MR. PLOCKER: I am going to object. Board6 professionals and applicants professionals correspond7 and talk about certain aspects of an application all the8 time. Was Mr. Kleinberg ever contacted by Mr. Goll?9 Did Mr. Afran ever ask Ms. McGovern or Mr. Kleinberg,10 can Mr. Goll go see the site. I don't know, but it's11 not unusual for applicants professionals, not attorneys,12 not the actual member of the applicant, but for13 professionals to discuss aspects of every application14 with one another. It's done in informal reviews, some15 towns do technical review committee meetings, so to16 insinuate that anything untowardly was going on here is17 absolutely preposterous.18 MR. AFRAN: May I continue?19 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Go ahead.20 You aren't speaking, Mr. Kleinberg, about21 Q. engineering matters and seeking technical guidance from22 her, were you?23 No, I was asking if I should be talking to the24 A. applicants engineer.25 34 And what made you think you should ask Ms.1 Q. McGovern for guidance on that? Why did you do that.2 Why did you think you should ask her for guidance on3 such a matter?4 Because she is our client. She is a5 A. representative of our client and so that's why I called6 her.7 Okay.8 Q. So you're an independent analyst and you spoke to9 the boards attorney to ask whether it's ethically okay10 for you to speak to one sides applicant and not the11 other. Is that what happened?12 No, I just asked if I should speak to the13 A. applicants engineers. I didn't say one side or the14 other. I didn't think about that.15 What did Ms. McGovern say to you?16 Q. We had requested -- she understood we requested17 A. information from them and the only way to get the18 information we need is to talk to them. That was my19 understanding.20 And my question was, what did Ms. McGovern say to21 Q. you?22 She said it's okay.23 A. Did you tell Ms. McGovern there was no plan to24 Q. involve the objectors engineer?25 35 No, I did not.1 A. So she didn't know this was going to be ex parte,2 Q. did she?3 I don't know what ex parte means.4 A. One sided without the other side being present.5 Q. Okay. Okay. I didn't, I didn't think of that.6 A. We requested the information from the

x parte,2 Q. did she?3 I don't know what ex parte means.4 A. One sided without the other side being present.5 Q. Okay. Okay. I didn't, I didn't think of that.6 A. We requested the information from the engineer and I was7 having a discussion to describe what we needed from him.8 So you proceeded to have the call the next day9 Q. with the Anderson and Langan people?10 Yes.11 A. Okay.12 Q. Now, I note there's an e-mail from you dated13 November 14 at 5:22 PM addressed to the same14 individuals, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Seel, Ms. Mazier, Mr.15 Hernandez and Mr. MacNeill. I don't think Mr. Rizzo was16 copied on this. I am not going to read the whole thing17 but it has a reference, to your understanding, as to18 what Langan will forward based on the discussion you had19 earlier that day. Is that correct?20 I believe so.21 A. Now, but it wasn't just confirming what they were22 Q. forwarding that you referenced in that e-mail, was it?23 No, we had technical discussions about what we24 A. would be looking for.25 36 But that's not all you said in the e-mail, was1 Q. it? You didn't just confirm what you were asking for in2 the November 14 response -- 15th response -- strike3 that.4 November 14 response -- strike that.5 When you wrote back from November 14, the6 Anderson Langan people, you were not just confirming7 what they would forward to you and what you needed, were8 you?9 You want me to -- I will try to find it and you10 A. want me to read it? I could read it.11 Read it to yourself and tell me whether or not --12 Q. well, I'll help you out, it would be easier.13 If you read it, it would be a lot easier.14 A. Do you have glasses today, by the way?15 Q. I have a better pair.16 A. It says here's that "we agree --" well, strike17 Q. that.18 In the sentence before it says, "As we discussed19 we are surprised that the analysis for seepage parallel20 to the slope would yield a FS," that's Frank/Sam, "on21 the order of 1.5. We agree that that would be an22 extreme event which may justify a lower Factor of Safety23 upon review of relevant standards." Now, you can look24 at your document I am quoting in the e-mail. So that25