HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic comment Harty 7.29.2025 and 8.19.2025 and 9.3.2025September 2, 2025
To: Town of Yarmouth ConservaƟon Commission
From: Brian & Rosanna Harty at 14 Hillsea Rd Yarmouth Port
Re: SE83-2492 addiƟonal quesƟons and concerns w/ 88 & 100 Mill Ln
The concerns of this project on the surrounding wetlands and conservaƟon are increasing, not decreasing,
each Ɵme Down Cape Engineering comes back. We’re more confident than ever that a project of this scale
does not belong on any property surrounded by water, wetlands and conservaƟon areas on three sides.
There’s a lot at risk that no amount of money or Ɵme can miƟgate. Reminder that it took ~30yrs to have
HalleƩ’s Mill Pond reopened.
During the meeƟng on August 21st, Down Cape Engineering addressed just a very small number of the
concerns that were presented by ConCom and the public at the August 7 th hearing. Our evolving percepƟon is
that the engineering firm is:
1. Unwilling to adhere to the many regulaƟons set forth by the State and by the Town
2. Unfamiliar with the laws and regulaƟons that govern this project (specifically around the Wetlands
ProtecƟon Act setbacks, water quality, etc.)
3. Unfamiliar with the MassachuseƩs Flood Risk Model 2050 (hasn’t been brought up at all)
4. AƩempƟng to fast track to prevent further invesƟgaƟon into the long-term impacts of this project
As you’re all aware, proper setbacks and wildlife passage from conservaƟon/wetlands areas are paramount to
the WPA regs yet somehow have been overlooked throughout each of the two hearings. In addiƟon to the
oversight of the laws, on a couple of occasions you’ve heard Down Cape Engineering state that they may
comply with an item “…as long as the Commission approves the plan” plus a Ʃempt to negoƟate w/ ConCom
on the standard 35’ buffer zone width down to 8’ – which is a 77% reducƟon. Is it a common pracƟce to
negoƟate with a Town’s Board on the laws? Seriously, does the engineering firm think the public and
neighbors are that naive?
The public deserves to hear from Down Cape Engineering, or ConCom, on how the project plan adheres to the
current laws in detail, not an ad hoc version of the laws made up that same evening. The public also deserves
to understand, in detail, what the miƟgaƟon plans are in the event of a mechanical failure, severe storm, etc.
and what happens to the waste and who’s responsible for the cleanup efforts. There’s so much more
important informaƟon missing.
Lastly, we appreciate the volunteerism of the Yarmouth ConservaƟon Commission, we know it can’t be easy to
review projects of this scale and its future impacts on our community. We simply ask the Board to follow
through on exactly why you volunteered, to follow your passion to protect the public and wildlife from projects
that could cause harm or negaƟvely impact the environment.
Respecƞully,
Brian & Rosanna Harty
August 18, 2025
To: Town of Yarmouth Conservation Commission
From: Brian & Rosanna Harty at 14 Hillsea Rd Yarmouth Port
Re: Follow up questions and concerns
As a follow-up to the meeting on August 7th, we’d like to address a few items that remain concerning.
The Wetlands Protection Act – Con Comm didn’t address the buffer zone provisions with the Engineer. As the Commission is aware, the WPA places an emphasis on the necessary protection
for the buffer zone and the project area is abutting a wetland resource area – BVW (Bordering Vegetated Wetland). The WPA states that you must protect the buffer zones because of the
functions they provide, for example a wildlife habitat. Any fence that’s being proposed will block or alter the buffer zone, and it will eliminate passage of wildlife from the buffer
zone to the BVW. Also, Old King’s Highway Commission should be included in any decision of a structure or fence, especially where it’s on an official Town of Yarmouth Scenic Byway.
In fact, OKH has an entire document on fencing alone: www.yarmouth.ma.us/DocumentCenter/View/9658/FENCES
Water Quality – Continuous monitoring of the surrounding water quality didn’t appear to be in the purview of the Con Comm. Prior to any decision on the project, the Town should provide
the public with the results of an environmental impact study. Should the Town of Yarmouth hire an independent outside environmental consultant to research the impact of a commercial
operation and its animal waste on the surrounding wetlands and conservation areas?
Percentage of of usable acres: Con Comm needs to consider the amount of usable acreage vs. conservation/wetlands. That’s a lot of animals for a small amount of “usable” acreage. It
could give the Town a lot of exposure and put the Town at risk at the impacts to Hallett’s Mill Pond.
The original 88 Mill Ln “permit” that was submitted was more of a punch list of actions vs. an official Town permit. Is the existing barn a pre-existing, non-conforming condition, especially
given that it’s less than 250ft from wetlands? How will that impact adding additional stalls, when there’s only 7 stall now?
Remaining Town Commissions that should be involved:
What has the Board of Health said about the barn, stalls and the proximity to Hallets Mill Pond?
July 18, 2025
To: Town of Yarmouth Conservation Commission
From: Brian & Rosanna Harty residing at 14 Hillsea Rd Yarmouth Port
Re: SE83-2492 (88 & 100 Mill Ln)
Thank you for the opportunity to submit questions and concerns regarding this project.
My wife and I are full time residents roughly 50yds from the subject area at 88 Mill Ln. We have a view of the barn on the property from three sides of our house, and we truly admire
such a structure. We have concerns about the impacts, both short and long-term, to the conservation and wetlands areas around the property if such a project is approved. We strongly
oppose this commercial farm operation because our concerns are the following but not limited to:
Wetland Protections Act: Under section 310 CMR.10.24: General Provisions for coastal wetlands, which is where this project area is located… “… the issuing authority shall impose such
conditions as are necessary to contribute to the protection of such interests…”
The site plan shows that the parcel (88 Mill Ln) is bordering a wetland resource area, i.e. salt marsh, which means that Yarmouth ConCom shall impose conditions to protect the interests
identified for the adjacent resource area (e.g. erosion and sedimentation controls during a construction. (see Section 310 CMR.10.24 for full text in the Wetland Protection Act).
Also, in section 310 CMR 10.32(3). The project is within 100 feet of a salt marsh. “A proposed project…. SHALL NOT destroy any portion of the salt marsh and SHALL NOT have an adverse
effect on the productivity of the salt marsh……” One can argue that the goats and their waste can produce excessive nutrient loading that will be destructive to the vegetation in the
salt marsh.
Buffer zone provisions under the Wetlands Protection Act placed an emphasis on the necessary protection for the buffer zone (the area is abutting wetland resource area – BVW -Bordering
Vegetated Wetland). One can argue that you must protect the buffer zone because of the functions they provide, for example for wildlife habitat – if they alter buffer zone, they may
eliminate passage of wildlife from the buffer zone to the BVW.
Stormwater runoff from the pastures and manure/compost pile into Hallets Mill Pond impacting native plants, wildlife, fish and shellfish. What will the impact be on this area 5, 10
and 20yrs down the road?
MassMapper also shows that this project area is within the vicinity marked as National Heritage and Endangered Species Protection (NHESP) Priority Habitats of Rare Species – see yellow
hashed lines below marked as PH892 below:
/
One would also argue that the project is within the vicinity of a water body – it may trigger Riverfront Area – 310 CMR 10.58 and that’s another wetland resource area that has different
performance standards.
The “Massachusetts Flood Risk Model 2050” shows nearly the entire project area as being impacted. Has that been considered?
Property Outline without MA Flood Risk Model 2050:
/
Property Outline WITH MA Flood Risk Model 2050:
/
Fertilizers, pesticides and other chemicals and the impact on the tidal waters coming in and out of Mill Creek. A large section of the water just on the outskirts of the property is
considered a shellfish propagation area. Recreational activities such as swimming, kayaking, fishing. We’re concerned that it won’t be safe to do any of this in the area with such
chemicals in the water.
Impacts of over grazing and the runoff of animal waste into wetlands and conservation areas.
Other concerns unrelated to Conservation: farm animal noises, continuous farm odor, pests such as coyotes and rats, traffic from a commercial operation in a residential neighborhood.
Thank you in advance for understanding our concerns.
Brian & Rosanna Harty
14 Hillsea Rd