HomeMy WebLinkAboutAbutter comment Stayn + Rosen 8.1.2025, 8.19.2025, and 9.3.20251
September 3, 2025
Yarmouth ConservaƟon Commission
and ConservaƟon Administrator BriƩany DiRienzo
Town Hall
1146 Route 28
South Yarmouth, MA 02664
Re: NOI #83-2492
Dear Chairman Bernstein, Commission Members, and Ms. DiRienzo:
It is no surprise that Down Cape Engineering and the applicant (together, the “Applicant”) now
seek to fast-track their NOI: much of what they have presented defies both Town and State law
and common sense. In addiƟon to the numerous violaƟons and concerns itemized in our August
1st and 18th leƩers—which have sƟll not been addressed—we highlight the following:
1. Riverfront ViolaƟons: The Applicant’s own NOI says that the Applicant plans to alter the
Riverfront Area. Further, Mill Creek and Hallet’s Mill Pond are legally considered a River,
as evidenced by both the “Riparian Zone” labels on the Applicant’s Plan and MassDEP’s
River Mouth maps. These designaƟons trigger a required 200-foot setback from the
annual high-water mark, but the Applicant’s fourth revised Plan sƟll fails to show or
follow it. AddiƟonally, puƫng a large manure storage area, a 32-animal barn, almost an
acre of animal pasture, hundreds of feet of 6-foot fencing, coir logs, swales, and berms
within the 200-foot Riverfront Area fails to meet the legal requirements to avoid
substanƟal adverse effects and rigorously analyze alternaƟves. These failures appear
to violate Town Wetland ProtecƟon RegulaƟon (WPR) SecƟon 1.02(1)(d) and 310 CMR
10.58.
2. Coastal Storm Flowage ViolaƟon: The Applicant’s August 28th Plan proposes building a
6-foot fence right from the ground up, just 8 feet from wetlands. The fence lacks the
required 6-inch ground clearance for floodwater and would restrict wildlife movement
from the wetlands near Water Street and abuƫng conservaƟon land. The Plan also
includes “semi-pervious” coir logs and a berm-swale system just 3 feet from wetlands,
aimed at “generally trapping” runoff. These installaƟons would redirect surface flows
and could cause unnatural channels. So far, there is no sign that these concerns have
been examined or that changes have been made to ensure compliance. These proposed
alteraƟons to areas marked as Coastal Storm Flowage on the Applicant’s Plan appear
to violate WPR SecƟon 4.10(3)(a) and 310 CMR 10.02.
3. IrrigaƟon-Related Water Quality ViolaƟons: The Applicant’s August 28th IrrigaƟon
Sketch Plan shows that the pump well for irrigaƟng all of 88 and 100 Mill Lane is just 5
feet from where pesƟcides would be used “as needed” and manure would be spread,
in the proposed quarter-acre growing area (note: the IPM BMPs cited by the Applicant
2
also exempt rodenƟcides). This greatly increases the chance of spraying polluted water
via the sprinkler heads that line the protected resource areas and the pastures where
32+ animals will release feces and urine.
The Applicant’s August 25th Stormwater Flow Arrow Sketch shows that runoff
from this irrigaƟon would flow into the salt marsh/Mill Creek, the culvert to Mill Pond,
and the wetlands near Water Street. This would violate both the Town Stormwater
RegulaƟon’s ban on runoff with animal waste into waterways or water resource areas,
and Mass. DMF’s direcƟve requiring that “no runoff or animal waste or associated
nutrients” reach wetlands or waterways.
Further, mulƟple sprinkler heads are within the 35-to-50-foot setback (e.g., A19,
A20, and A31 on Plan) or 200-foot Riverfront Area setback (e.g., A12-A14, 2 heads near
manure pile) in violaƟon of WPR SecƟon 6.01(3)&(4).
4. The Incredible Shrinking Buffer Zone: The Applicant’s July 2nd Plan showed 100-foot
and 50-foot setback lines. By July 31st, the Applicant had added a 35-foot line. Now, the
Applicant’s August 28th Plan proposes a buffer just 8 feet wide, a 77% reducƟon. That
appears to violate WPR SecƟons 6.01(2) and 6.02, which require at least a 35-foot (and
likely a 50-foot) undisturbed buffer between any projects and wetlands, rivers, creeks,
banks, or land that floods. During the August 21st hearing, Chairman Bernstein and
Administrator DiRienzo themselves pointed out that the NRCS BMPs that the Applicant
cited call for at least a 15-foot buffer. Should an NOI be approved when it does not even
follow the BMPs on which the Applicant relies, never mind the wider setbacks
required by law?
AddiƟonally, the Applicant’s August 28th Plan appears to show steep buffer zone
slopes: the 50-foot buffer zone drops from 20 feet to 10 feet (50%) and the 35-foot
buffer zone drops from 14 feet to 10 feet (29%). These slopes run counter to WPR
SecƟon 6.01(2), which encourages the Commission to increase the buffer zone if its
downward slope exceeds even 18% or the project’s nature requires a greater offset to
protect resource areas.
5. JurisdicƟon Beyond the Buffer Zone: The Applicant has repeatedly asserted that the
manure and composƟng area falls “outside your jurisdicƟon” because it would be
located more than 100 feet from a waterway or wetland. But that asserƟon is not true.
WPR SecƟons 1.02(2) and 1.06 (“Alter”) and 310 CMR 10.04 (“Alter”) authorize the
Commission to regulate any acƟvity—even those outside the buffer—if they “affect” a
protected resource area (e.g., by causing harmful runoff or indirectly harming it).
Here, the chance of polluted runoff from the manure pile and animal waste in the
pastures geƫng into Mill Creek, Mill Pond, the wetlands near Water Street, and their
respecƟve buffers, is exactly the kind of “alteraƟon” these regulaƟons were meant to
prevent. That means that the Commission has not only the jurisdicƟon but a regulatory
duty to consider these offsite impacts and to deny the proposed locaƟon for the
manure and composƟng area.
3
6. Where Are the Applicant’s Own BMPs?: The Applicant has repeatedly claimed to be a
“very experienced farmer” who has long followed its own BMPs. During the August 7th
hearing, the ConservaƟon Administrator and several Commissioners expressly asked
for the specific BMPs that the Applicant would follow and how it would follow them.
The Applicant replied that it had already generated the BMPs and could submit them
“tomorrow.” But the Applicant sƟll has not submiƩed a single wriƩen BMP specific to
planned operaƟons at 88/100 Mill Lane. This omission is very troubling and raises a
serious quesƟon: do these BMPs even exist in a form that can be reviewed and
enforced? Or, for example, will the Applicant later claim that parts of the BMPs it cited
do not apply to this site or the kind of operaƟons being conducted there?
7. A Swale-Berm System This Close to a Wetland Is Not MiƟgaƟon—It Is ContaminaƟon:
The Applicant wants to bury a semi-pervious coir log under soil and seed and call it
“stormwater control.” But this approach is not just ineffecƟve—it is unproven, unsafe,
and noncompliant:
a. Coir Log=PolluƟon Disguised as PrevenƟon: A “semi-pervious” coir log is designed
to control erosion, not to prevent or filter polluted runoff.1 Fecal bacteria, urine,
and nitrogen can sƟll pass through, especially during heavy rain or floods. And
this is a FEMA-designated high-risk flood zone. So, such events have at least a 1%
per year chance of pushing pollutants straight into a mulƟ-acre, hydrologically
connected wetland system. That would defeat the main point of a buffer zone.
b. Swale-Berm System=Wrong Tool for the Job: Swales are made not to filter runoff
but to hold it so that it can infiltrate the soil and replenish groundwater. Berms
block and collect runoff so it can soak into the ground. But infiltraƟon is exactly
what should not happen here, where the water carries harmful bacteria and
nutrients from animal waste. Notably, the Applicant used measured phrasing to
describe these tools at the August 21st hearing (e.g., “generally trap,” “assist in
uptake of nutrients”). The Applicant’s Stormwater Flow Arrow Sketch shows
how this runoff would spread into wetlands only 3-to-8 feet from these “tools.”
c. Harmful to Wetland Health: Impeding normal runoff with berms, swales, and coir
logs could leave wetlands too dry during certain Ɵmes of year, harming base
flow levels and proper salinity raƟos. So far, no one has looked at whether this
system might actually harm the wetlands and waterways it is intended to protect.
d. Too Close and Too Risky: Installing swales, berms, and coir logs just 3-to-8 feet
from the wetland would actually alter—by digging, filling, building upon, and
changing elevaƟons—the edge of the very buffer zone that is meant to be leŌ
undisturbed. Further, coir logs must be replaced periodically and are made from
coconut, neƫng, and other materials not naƟve to Cape Cod. Such acƟvity
1 hƩps://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/11/8/1575 (finding coir ineffecƟve in reducing leachate nutrient
concentraƟons of nitrogen and phosphorus).
4
clearly requires a variance. However, no variance is warranted under WPR
SecƟon 7.01 because the swales, berms, and coir log add new risks, aim to
miƟgate against worse condiƟons rather than significantly improve ecological
condiƟons, and have not been shown to have no substanƟal adverse effect.
e. Likely Illegal without a Permit: Installing coir logs, swales, berms, and 6-foot
fencing within 3-to-8 feet of wetlands would disturb over an acre of wetlands, in
violaƟon of Town Stormwater RegulaƟon SecƟon 2.02(1), which bans runoff
from animal waste into waterways or wetlands. At the very least, such changes
require a stormwater permit. Has the Commission thought about exercising its
power under SecƟon 1.04(5) to hire an engineer or consultant—at the
Applicant’s cost—to help evaluate these newly proposed installaƟons’ risks?
We truly appreciate your willingness to volunteer for the Commission. We recognize that
evaluaƟng the suitability, legality, and long-term impacts of large, complex projects is not easy.
That is especially true where the project involves mulƟple commercial operaƟons, is pracƟcally
surrounded by water resource areas, and is situated in an area with a long history of ecological
sensiƟvity. Since the NOI’s filing, the Applicant’s revisions and representaƟons have only
increased our concerns, introducing more buffer zone encroachments and irrigaƟon risks,
unsubstanƟated claims about BMPs and jurisdicƟon, and proposed structures that appear
scienƟfically unsupported, poorly planned, and regulatorily noncompliant.
Given your acknowledgement during the August 21st hearing that you have never reviewed a
farm proposal of this nature before, we simply ask that you carry out your mission to protect
the public from projects such as this one, which would harm our community’s resources. We
urge you to seek assistance by hiring an independent professional to conduct a thorough,
science-based review of how the project could adversely affect protected resource areas. If the
Applicant cannot meet its burden to prove that the project will avoid adverse impacts and
follow all legal requirements, we respecƞully urge the Commission to deny the NOI.
Sincerely,
Joshua Stayn and Rachel Rosen
1
August 18, 2025
Yarmouth ConservaƟon Commission
and ConservaƟon Administrator BriƩany DiRienzo
Town Hall
1146 Route 28
South Yarmouth, MA 02664
Re: NOI #83-2492
Dear Chairman Bernstein, Commission Members, and Ms. DiRienzo:
AŌer presenƟng for almost 75 minutes, receiving Commission and public feedback regarding their
revised applicaƟon’s shortcomings, and having two weeks to respond, the applicants have sƟll
failed to submit a legally adequate NOI. Notably:
1. JurisdicƟon: The applicant spent much hearing Ɵme asserƟng that 88 Mill remains “land in
agricultural use” and agreeing to review as a new farm only “as long as everything goes our way.”
Yet, in its NOI, the applicant itself states that it seeks “establishment of farm use.” Further, DEP
has ruled that historical farm use and subsequent landscape maintenance are not enough to
qualify as “land in agricultural use”; 310 CMR 10.04 requires proof that the land is “presently
and primarily used in producing or raising [certain] agricultural commodiƟes for commercial
purposes.” See Idlewild Acres, LLC.1 The applicant has produced no evidence of that.
2. Wetlands & Wildlife Disturbances: At the hearing, the applicant asserted that it plans to “just
reestablish[] the exisƟng fencing pasture,” that “there’s a nice liƩle wooded, brushy buffer
between the fence and the wetland flags,” and that “fencing is generally allowed under the
Wetlands ProtecƟon Act.”
In actuality, the applicant’s Plan would violate 310 CMR 10.02(1), because much of the
proposed fencing would be inside protected wetland resource areas (i.e., Riverfront Area,
Coastal Banks, Tidal and Coastal Storm Flowage lands, and high-risk FEMA flood zones),
“against a wetland edge” with liƩle to no buffer and a steep drop-off (as Ms. DiRienzo noted at
the hearing), and/or essenƟally enclosing 3 sides of a large wetland. Further, the applicant
violates 310 CMR 10.58, by failing to provide any evidence—never mind a preponderance of
it—showing why this should be allowed, why there are no pracƟcable alternaƟves with less
adverse effects,2 and how the project meets rigorous performance standards, including that it
will have no significant adverse impact.
1 See hƩps://www.mass.gov/doc/peter-betsy-wildidlewild-acres-llc-recommended-final-decision-wet-2019-019-and-
020/download.
2 To date, the only alternaƟve that the applicant has proposed is that “the site could remain as is.” Although that
statement appears in its own NOI dated July 3rd, oddly the applicant states in its latest filing that it “cannot
meaningfully answer” whether that means that the applicant is willing to let the property remain as is if denied.
2
Much of the fencing also would violate SecƟon 6.02 of the Town’s Wetlands ProtecƟon
RegulaƟon, because it would stand inside the required 35-to-50-foot no-disturbance buffer
zone “between the landward-most wetland resource area and the limit of proposed site
disturbance.” The applicant fails to explain, as that regulaƟon requires, why this should be
allowed and how it will not cause a substanƟal adverse impact.
Further, the proposed 4.5-to-6-foot-high fencing and gates within buffer areas would violate
310 CMR 10.02(2)(b)2.b, because they would “consƟtute a barrier to wildlife movement.” The
proposed metal, welded wire, and raised stone wall topped with post-and-beam fencing would
be far higher and less permeable than the past, low, further away split-rail fencing. In addiƟon,
the applicant said that “the donkeys will kick the teeth out of the coyotes or a dog or whatever
got in there to bother the goats” and that higher fencing is needed “because the li Ʃle suckers
[i.e., goats] can jump” to surrounding land. To date, the applicant has never menƟoned, let alone
conducted an ecological survey to evaluate, the proposed fencing’s possible obstrucƟon of vital
wildlife corridors, danger to the deer, oƩers, bobcats, coyotes, foxes, rabbits, and other wildlife
that extensively use this land and the abuƫng public conservaƟon land along Water Street, and
impact of such obstrucƟon and danger beyond 88 Mill’s boundaries.
3. Water Quality: At the hearing, the applicant repeatedly asserted that “there can be no runoff”
into Mill Pond, Mill Creek, or wetlands because of its proposed roofed, three-sided, concrete-
padded shed at a “natural high point” and its manure management BMP.
In reality, the applicant’s approach would violate both Yarmouth’s Stormwater RegulaƟons’
prohibiƟon on discharging animal waste, pesƟcide, and ferƟlizer into waters or water resource
areas, and Mass. DMF’s direcƟve that the applicant ensure “no runoff or animal waste or
associated nutrients into nearby wetlands or waterways.” Given that the proposed fencing and
pastures are so close to wetlands, this approach also would violate Yarmouth’s Wetlands
ProtecƟon RegulaƟons’ ban on ferƟlizer (e.g., manure) within 35-50 feet of wetlands. Here’s why:
First, siƟng the shed on a “high point” and leƫng 30-40 animals graze in pastures that slope
downward toward the interconnected waters and wetlands on and abuƫng 88/100 Mill, as the
Plan’s contour lines show, would actually maximize the likelihood of illegal discharges and runoff.
Manure from animals grazing on and below the downward-sloping northern and eastern
protected coastal bank areas would flow into the Mill Creek marsh/estuary and wetlands along
Water Street. Notably, the applicant’s Plan fails to idenƟfy, as the 2012 DOA on which Down
Cape worked does, that (1) 88 Mill’s “large wetland system” “connect[s] hydrologically … across
Water Street” to the northeast area of the abuƫng property (previously Bilezikian-owned
pasture; now 64 Mill Lane); and (2) an inverted pipe “pitches toward … catch basins at the
corner of Water Street and HIllsea Road” and links wetlands on both sides of Water Street.
Further, manure seepage west of the barn would flow both steeply downhill over the road to
Mill Pond and to the culvert under Mill Lane that, as the 2012 DOA reports, discharges runoff
“to the marsh system across the street” (i.e., Mill Pond). The applicant’s updated Plan moves
the manure shed closer to the slope leading to the culvert. Thus, rather than acƟng as what the
applicant called a “biofilter,” the “high point” manure pile and downhill pastures would
transform these interconnected water resource areas into a contaminaƟon-spreading system.
3
Second, exisƟng condiƟons would further facilitate illegal pollutant runoff. Despite asserƟng at
the hearing that the pasture grass would be “a great nitrogen absorber,” the 2012 DOA on
which Down Cape worked, states that “poorly draining soils” cause 64 Mill Lane’s property to
“retain surface water” and to flood abuƫng southerly property with “standing water.” This
highlights the area’s poorly draining soils, interconnected waters, and flooding/standing water
challenges. CollecƟng animal waste from pastures 3 Ɵmes per week and from stalls every 1-2
days would only increase the risk of wetland contaminaƟon from runoff. Also, during the August
7th hearing, the applicant could not even say whether Mill Lane’s culvert sƟll flows, so clearly
does not know whether its operaƟon would further harm Mill Pond and its shellfish. What if it
rains on the days manure is not collected?
Third, perching a three-sided shed atop a steep hill surrounded by wetlands allows zero room for
error. For starters, such a shed ignores the very Mass. DFA Manure Management Fact Sheet
that the applicant filed, which directs farmers to keep manure in “contained and impermeable”
faciliƟes away from “sloped lands.” In addiƟon, based on the shed image in the revised NOI, the
applicant has failed to include even basic anƟ-runoff sloping, guƩers, and seƩling basins.
Moreover, given the area’s flash floods and FEMA flood zone designaƟon, a roof would not
prevent stormwater from flowing onto the pad from the barn side, mixing with spilled or piled
manure or compost, and running off. Concrete pads in sold/semi-solid animal waste structures
are prone to cracks, seams, and imperfecƟons, parƟcularly when manure piles up during wet,
non-growing seasons. Given these problems and resulƟng likelihood of illegal, contaminated
seepage and downhill flow into wetlands, bold assurances are not enough.
Fourth, despite Ms. DiRienzo’s direcƟve to not just “say[] we’re going to follow all the BMPs”
but to “submit specifically the BMPs that they are deploying and where,” with “detail,” the
applicant sƟll has not submiƩed BMPs. The new one-page chart naming 12 different BMPs,
ciƟng sources containing hundreds of pages (many of them irrelevant to this property and the
proposed acƟviƟes), and claiming compliance by lisƟng off a few BMP-related buzzwords, is
wholly insufficient. A legally sufficient plan requires specific, engineered, and enforceable
strategies with clear Ɵmelines and monitoring to ensure the proposed acƟviƟes will not impair
storm damage prevenƟon, flood control, and habitat protecƟon in the protected resource
areas. Further, the applicant’s NRCS references are to naƟonal standard documents, which
NRCS specifies “should not be used to plan, design or install a conservaƟon pracƟce.”3 The
applicant claims to embrace NRCS’s BMPs, but the applicant has offered no manure drainage
plan despite NRCS’s MassachuseƩs BMP for a Waste Storage Facility instrucƟng farmers to, at
minimum, “ensure there is posiƟve drainage away [from] storage faciliƟes.”4 AŌer claiming at
the hearing to be “experienced” in using best pracƟces on its New York farm and to have
consulted heavily with NRCS, the fact that the applicant sƟll has not furnished legally adequate
BMPs should give the Commission pause.
3 See hƩps://www.nrcs.usda.gov/resources/guides-and-instrucƟons/waste-storage-facility-no-313-conservaƟon-
pracƟce-standard.
4 See hƩps://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/api/CPSFile/49886/313_MA_OM_Waste_Storage_Facility_2024_pdf.
4
4. Fecal Coliform Bacteria Risk: At the hearing, the applicant repeatedly asserted that 30+ goats
and 2 donkeys would “tread lightly on the environment” and have “lower impact” because they
are “miniaturized” and the “quanƟty and weight of the animals” means “there’s simply not a
large volume of waste.”
As I (Rachel), a Board-cerƟfied pediatric gastroenterologist, stated at the hearing, the idea that
smaller poop is somehow less hazardous is false. As we noted in our Aug. 1 st leƩer, the animals
sƟll are esƟmated to generate nearly half-a-ton of manure per week, goat manure has a higher
nitrogen concentraƟon than cow or horse manure, and goat urine is even more concentrated.
In absolute terms, the proposal would sƟll introduce voluminous fecal coliform bacteria and
nitrogen polluƟon inside protected coastal, wetland, and buffer areas. Notably, despite
claiming reliance on “actual operaƟonal experience over a ten-year period, not esƟmates,” the
applicant conƟnues to impede the Commission from ensuring environmental protec Ɵon by
withholding weekly manure and compost volume figures.
Though the applicant asserted at the hearing that it plans to return “again and again and again” for
future Commission approvals, the reality is the proposed project, if approved, might qualify for
several exempƟons that allow it to expand without further Town approvals. Thus, for the reasons
above and in our prior leƩer, we urge the Commission to scruƟnize not only the current applicaƟon
but also the applicant’s undetailed future plans and possibiliƟes. When you do so, we hope you will
agree that this commercial project should be denied.
Sincerely,
Joshua Stayn and Rachel Rosen
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands ~-~~0 uth
1y own
WPA Form 1-Request for Determination of Applicability
Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40
and Town of Yarmouth Wetlands Protection Bylaw, Chapter 143
A. General Information
Important:
When filling out 1-Applicant:
forms on the
computer, use
only the tab key
to move your
cursor -do not
use the return
key.
~
~
wpaform1 .doc
CTS Fiduciary, LLC, Tr., Eighty-Eight Mill Lane Real Estate Trust
Name
c/o Mill Lane Management, Inc., 231 Willow Street
Mailing Address
Yarmouthport
City/Town
Phone Number
2. Representative (if any):
Hamlyn Consulting
Firm
Lynne Whiting Hamlyn
Contact Name
690 Thousand Oaks Drive
Mailing Address
Brewster
City/Town
508-258-3211
Phone Number
B. Determinations
E-Mail Address
MA 02675
State Zip Code
Fax Number (if applicable)
hconsu lt2@comcast.net
E-Mail Address
MA
State
508-258-3211
02631
Zip Code
Fax Number (if applicable)
1. I request the Yarmouth make the following determination(s). Check any that apply: ----------Conservation Commission
D a. whether the area depicted on plan(s) and/or map(s) referenced below is an area subject to
jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act.
~ b. whether the boundaries of resource area(s) depicted on plan(s) and/or map(s) referenced
below are accurately delineated.
D c. whether the work depicted on plan(s) referenced below is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act.
D d. whether the area and/or work depicted on plan(s) referenced below is subject to the jurisdiction
of any municipal wetlands ordinance or bylaw of:
Name of Municipality
D e. whether the following scope of alternatives is adequate for work in the Riverfront Area as
depicted on referenced plan(s).
Page 1 of4
wpaform1 .doc
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands Yarmouth
WPA Form 1-Request for Determination of Applicability
Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40
City/Town
and Town of Yarmouth Wetlands Protection Bylaw, Chapter 143
C.Project Description
1.a. Project Location (use maps and plans to identify the location of the area subject to this request):
0 Mill Lane Yarmouth(port)--,----�-�----------Street Address City/Town
121 27
Assessors Map/Plat Number Parcel/Lot Number
b.Area Description (use additional paper, if necessary):
see attached USGS Quadrangle Sheet, DEP wetlands map, and site plan
Applicant seeks confirmation of resource area assessment & delineations: A. vegetated wetlands
limited to 1. bordering vegetated wetland at NE property corner, and 2. wetland Uurisdictional as
either >3000 sf isolated wetland or BVW -not determined) at westerly edge property at stone wall;
B.coastal bank; C. land subject to coastal storm flowage, and D. no Isolated Land Subject to
Floodin
c.Plan and/or Map Reference(s):
Plan of Land in Yarmouth(port), Parcel 10 -#0 Mill Lane
Title
February 1, 2012
Prepared for CTS Fiduciary, LLC Trustee of Eighty-Eight Mill Lane Real
Estate Trust
Prepared by Down Cape Engineering,
Date
Date
Date
2.a. Work Description (use additional paper and/or provide plan(s) of work, if necessary):
Page2 of4
CTS Fiduciary, LLC, Tr., Eighty-Eight Mill Lane Real Estate Trust
0 Mill Lane, Yarmouthport, MA
Request for Confirmation of Wetlands
The applicant seeks confirmation of the boundaries of resource areas defined in
M.G.L. Chapter 131, Section 40, and Town of Yarmouth Wetlands Protection Bylaw,
Chapter 143, at O Mill Lane, Yarmouthport:
Vegetated Wetlands
Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Re_gulations
310 CMR 10.55 (2) Definition, Critical Characteristics and Boundary.
( a) Bordering Vegetated Wetlands are freshwater wetlands which border on creeks, rivers,
streams, ponds and lakes. The types of freshwater wetlands are wet meadows, marshes,
swamps and bogs. Bordering Vegetated Wetlands are areas where the soils are saturated
and/or inundated such that they support a predominance of wetland indicator plants. The
ground and surface water regime and the vegetational community which occur in each type of
freshwater wetland are specified in M.G.L. c. 131, § 40.
(c) The boundary of Bordering Vegetated Wetlands is the line within which 50% or more of
the vegetational community consists of wetland indicator plants and saturated or inundated
conditions exist.
Town of Yarmouth Wetlands Protection Regulations
3.02(2) Definition, Critical Characteristics and Boundary
(a) Vegetated wetlands are brackish and freshwater wetlands. The types of brackish and
freshwater wetland are wet meadows, marshes, swamps and bogs. They are areas where the
topography is low and flat, and where soils are annually saturated. The ground and surface
water regime and the vegetational community which occur in each type of freshwater wetland
are specified in section 3.02, (2), (c).
(c) The boundary of a vegetated wetland is the line within which 50% or more of vegetational
community consists of the wetland plant species identified in sections 3.02, (1) thru 3.02, (2),
(c), (4), below. A minimum size of3000 square feet is required for iurisdiction under these
regulation.
There is an abrupt transition between the upland and wetland plant communities.
The edge of each wetland was delineated at the boundary of the plant community
supporting 50 percent or greater wetland indicator species.
Two wetlands were identified and delineated on the locus property, both
buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis -wetland indicator status OBL) swamps. A
DEP BVW Delineation Field Data Form is attached to document the upland plant
community, which is consistent adjacent to the wetlands. While the wetland in the
northeast property corner appears to be isolated with an area under the
jurisdictional square-foot threshold of the Town Wetlands Regulations, it is
connected hydrologically to the large wetland system across Water Street. The
Town installed a pipe with an invert in the "isolated" wetland that pitches toward a
series of four catch basins at the corner of Water Street and Hillsea Road, and drains
to a ditch on the other side of Water Street. Because of this connection, the wetland
is a BVW and subject to Conservation Commission jurisdiction.
The more southerly wetland along the stonewall at the easterly property line was
flooded at the time of the site assessment, precluding access for plant identification;
only buttonbush was able to be observed from the edge. A DEP sheet is attached for
the adjacent upland community. The wetland appears to be isolated based on the
general topography of the surrounding area and as shown on the DEP wetlands
map. Hamlyn Consulting did not circumambulate the wetland and did not
determine if it borders a waterbody to be a bordering vegetated wetland under state
and local jurisdiction. However, even if isolated, the wetland area exceeds 3000
square feet and is subject to Conservation Commission jurisdiction under the Bylaw,
regardless.
The attached copy of the DEP Wetlands Map shows the hydrologic connection of the
wetland in the NE property corner to the system across Water Street, and the
easterly wetland at the stonewall.
Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage
The DEP uses the 100-year coastal flooding event as defined and mapped by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) per the National Flood Insurance
Program, as the maximum flood elevation associated with land subject to coastal
storm flowage.
Town of Yarmouth Wetlands Protection Regulations
2.10(2) Definition:
"Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage" are areas that extend up-gradient or landward from
the ocean and the ocean's estuaries to a point where the maximum lateral extent of floodwater
will theoretically terminate based upon the 100 year frequency storm. Said boundary shall be
the relevant 100 year storm elevation referenced within the latest available Flood Insurance
Rate Maps provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
The boundary of LSCSF on the locus property is identified as contour 11 (NGVD) in
accordance with the FEMA Federal Insurance Rate Map for this area -Flood Zone
A3, elevation 11 feet.
Coastal Bank
Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Regulations
310 CMR 10.55 (2) Definition
Coastal Bank means the seaward face or side of any elevated landform, other than a coastal
dune, which lies at the landward edge of a coastal beach, land subject to tidal action, or other
wetland.
Town of Yarmouth Wetlands Protection Regulations
2.05(2) Definition:
"Coastal bank" means the seaward/ace or side of any elevated landform, other than a coastal
dune, which lies at the landward edge of a coastal beach, land subject to tidal action or storm
flowage, or other wetland. Any minor discontinuity of the slope notwithstanding, the top of the
bank shall be the first significant break in slope that occurs above the relevant 100 year flood
plain elevation.
The 100 year flood plain elevation shall be taken from the latest available Flood Insurance
Rate Maps, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency for the Town of
Yarmouth.
The top of coastal bank was delineated in accordance with Wetlands Protection
Program Policy 92-1 -Coastal Banks: Definition and Delineation Criteria
for Coastal Bank (DWW Policy 92-1), issued: March 3, 1992.
The top of coastal bank occurs at the top of slope along the westerly side of Mill
Lane, upgradient of the salt marsh. The grade above the coastal bank is mostly level
( < 10 percent) across the road. Along the more northerly section, the elevation at
the top of bank is equal to or greater than the flood zone elevation of 11 feet: Figure
2 of the Policy. Moving along the bank southward, the elevation drops under 11 feet
at the top of bank but the slope upgradient is less than 10 percent running up to
contour 11; elevation 11 feet shifts to the east side of Mill Road: Figure 4.
Accordingly, the top of bank is consistent along the distinct break in slope
upgradient of the salt marsh, to the west of Mill Lane for it's length, parallel to the
locus site's westerly property line.
Confirmation that there is no wetland resource on the locus property along
the southerly property line
The poorly draining soils on the property retain surface water in isolated pockets.
The removal of woody vegetation and minor alteration of the grade from digging the
most southerly Title 5 test hole created a micro-wetland of herbaceous species
limited to the footprint of disturbance. At the time of the site assessment, standing
water was observed south of this test hole test hole, extending over the abutting
property to the south. However, the dominant plant community in the flooded area
consists of facultative and upland indicators, primarily Allegheny blackberry in a
dense thicket, and including European privet, Japanese honeysuckle, white pine,
greenbrier and goldenrod. There is a small area -estimated by observation to be
less than 750 square feet -supporting sensitive fern and a large willow where water
is retained for longer periods. A small wetland is shown on the site plan approved
by the Conservation Commission for the adjacent Miles-Campbell Family Limited
Partnership property to the south that does not extend onto this applicant's
property.
While occasionally retaining surface waters, the area is not saturated long enough
during the growing season to support a wetland plant communi_ty. The slope of land
drains surface water from the locus property to the abutting property, which is then
discharged to the west via a culvert under Mill Lane. In accordance with 310 CMR
10.57, isolated land subject to flooding is an isolated depression or closed basin
without an inlet or an outlet, which at least once a year confines standing water to a
volume of at least ¼ acre-feet and to an average depth of at least six inches. The
area temporarily flooded on the locus property does not meet the definition of ILSF:
The slope of land drains water southward to preclude the possibility of it collecting
to the¼ acre-foot minimum volume threshold and 6-inch minimum depth before it
is discharged through an outlet to the marsh system across the street.
w ..J m
z 0:: < m LL 0 z
HALLET$
'C:l.,,...__�-Y/ MILL
POND
0
D 0
()
<:, 29 1•1.e
28 IJ8M: ,., 0 PI011� 11�� ..
INFORM.t.TION SHOw-1 HEREON IS FOR ASSESSING PURPOSES CN.Y. NO LIABILITY FOR ERROR IS ASSUMED BY THE TOw-1 OF YARMOUTH
DATE Of LATEST MAP REVISION: 91160;
100 50 0 100 200Feet s TOWN OF YARMOUTH
BARNSTABLE COUNTY, MA88ACHU8ETT8
PD.121.flll {
i� I 5.17AC : / --""-
◄ OAC
3 ' 0 .
.,
... u
129 130 131
122
112 113
Sheet
121
0 (now
64) Mill
88
Mill
|-Wetland|}|
August 1, 2025
1 of 6
Yarmouth Conservation Commission
and Conservation Administrator Brittany DiRienzo
Town Hall
1146 Route 28
South Yarmouth, MA 02664
Dear Chairman Bernstein, Commissioners, and Administrator DiRienzo:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on SE83-2492 (the “Project”). We live directly across
from 88 Mill Lane and strongly oppose this Project. If approved, the Project would adversely impact
the fragile coastal ecosystem surrounding 88/100 Mill Lane (“88/100 Mill”), including the waters,
wetlands, conservation land, and the wildlife, recreators, and shellfishermen who depend on them.
We appreciate farms and farmers (Rachel’s father was a farmer). However, 88/100 Mill is not an
appropriate location for a commercial operation of this scale. While the Town’s “Right to Farm”
bylaw is important, it does not exempt new farms from wetlands, flood plain, and other regulations.1
Further, that right was intended as an affirmative defense for farms that have been operating for
more than one year, not to give potential farmers preference over existing neighbors and land uses.2
The Commission should not view this bylaw as necessitating approval of a project that would have
significant adverse impacts on the environment, wildlife, and recreation, nor as condoning leaving
the Project to neighbors to challenge. Indeed, given that Town agencies may have far less input or
regulatory control regarding future activities at the site if this Project is approved, the Commission
should evaluate the Project rigorously and independently. We urge you to deny the application (or at
least significantly scale down and modify it) based, without limitation, on the following significant
environmental, wildlife, and recreation concerns:
Water-Related Concerns
1. Stormwater Pollutants: Introducing 30+ goats and 2 donkeys to 88/100 Mill would bring a
massive amount of (1) coliform bacteria and pathogens in their excrement to the manure
composting area, pens, and pastures; (2) insecticide and cleaning products (e.g., lime) to the
barn stalls; and (3) herbicides and pesticides to the animal grazing areas (as the applicant now
1 See Town of Yarmouth Selectmen Regulations, Ch. 157 (“Farming”)
(https://ecode360.com/10389647#:~:text=for%20farming%20operations.-
,%C2%A7%20157%2D3%20Right%20to%20farm%20declaration.,including%20but%20not%20limited%20to:) (citing
M.G.L. Ch. 40A, Sec. 3, and stating that the Right-to-Farm Bylaw’s purpose is to “restate and republish” the
Commonwealth’s right-to-farm law, “not [to] amend or establish any exemption to any existing or future Town of
Yarmouth Bylaw or regulation”); M.G.L. Ch. 40A, Sec. 3
(https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleVII/Chapter40a/Section3) (2025) (stating that “[n]o zoning
ordinance or by-law shall exempt land or structures from flood plain or wetlands regulations established pursuant to the
General Laws”).
2 See M.G.L. Ch. 243, Sec. 6 (2021)
(https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIII/TitleIII/Chapter243/Section6) (providing an affirmative
defense if “said farm shall have been in operation for more than one year”); M.G.L. Ch. 61A, Sec. 4 (2022)
(https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleIX/Chapter61A/Section4) (permitting preferred tax
treatment of land used for farming only if it is at least “five acres in area which is actively devoted to agricultural or
horticultural … uses during the tax year in issue and has been so devoted for at least the two immediately preceding tax years”);
Selectmen Regulations, Ch. 157 (advising that property that buyers or occupants “are about to acquire or occupy lies within a
town where farming activities occur,” and not covering property that occupants currently occupy or properties where
farming might occur at some future time).
2 of 6
concedes in its new Addendum). Under the Town’s Stormwater Management Regulations,
such “animal wastes,” “fecal coliform and pathogens,” “pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers,”
“hazardous materials and wastes,” and “non-hazardous liquid and solid wastes” are
pollutants.3 Given that the animal areas would be located several feet uphill from Mill Pond
and surrounding wetlands/water resource areas and conservation land, these pollutants
would likely seep into the ground, flow into these protected areas through surface and
ground water runoff, and cause erosion, sedimentation, and harm to native plants, wildlife,
and shellfish.4 Under the stormwater regulations, such “discharge[] [of] any pollutant or non-
stormwater discharge … into a water resource area, or into the waters … within or bordering
the Town of Yarmouth” is prohibited.5 Large rainfalls already cause surface and ground
water to flow into Mill Pond and to soak Water Street’s conservation land.6 Notably, Mill
Pond was closed for shellfishing for 30 years due to the presence of fecal coliform bacteria.7
Regarding Mill Pond’s reopening in 2012, the Town wrote that the MA Division of Marine
Fisheries “rarely consider[s]” such reopenings and that this action “require[d] years of
supporting water quality data and the commitment of the town to address pollution sources
impacting our water.”8 Still, in 2014, 2016, 2020, and 2022, the EPA documented Mill Creek,
including Short Wharf Creek, as impaired for shellfish harvesting due to fecal coliform.9
2. Excess Nitrogen: The initial 32 animals alone would generate hundreds of pounds of
manure weekly; additional commercially bred goats would produce even more.10 Both types
of animals’ manure and urine contain high levels of nitrogen (goat manure has more
nitrogen than cow or horse manure does).11 Nitrogen leaching or runoff would very likely
cause nitrogen exceedances in the Mill Pond, Mill Creek, and Short Wharf Creek estuaries
3 See Town of Yarmouth Stormwater Mgmt. Regulations, Sec. 1.02 (eff. July 1, 2021)
(https://www.yarmouth.ma.us/DocumentCenter/View/719/Stormwater-Regulations?bidId=).
4 See Contour Map from Town of Yarmouth Eng’g. Dept. (July 2025) (attached as Ex. A) and Environ. Assessment
Report (Mar. 21, 2025)
(https://lf.yarmouth.ma.us/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=2009307&dbid=0&repo=LASERFICHE) (observing that an
intermittent stream on 100 Mill Lane drains downgradient to a culvert under Mill Lane, which runs off directly into Mill
Pond).
5 See Stormwater Mgmt. Regulations, Sec. 3.03 (https://www.yarmouth.ma.us/DocumentCenter/View/719/Stormwater-
Regulations?bidId=).
6 See Applicant’s Bordering Vegetated Wetlands Determination Form for 88+100 Mill Lane (Mar. 19, 2025)
(https://lf.yarmouth.ma.us/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=2009308&dbid=0&repo=LASERFICHE) (reporting that
88/100 Mill’s wooded swamp is “contiguous with coastal wetlands and Cape Cod Bay,” has “low-lying topography [and]
intermittent stream flow,” is “subject to coastal flows during storm events,” and has 3 inches of surface water present).
7 See Town of Yarmouth 2011 Annual Report, at 99 (excerpt attached as Ex. B)
(https://lf.yarmouth.ma.us/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=1516578&dbid=0&repo=LASERFICHE).
8 Id.
9 See EPA, Nonpoint Source: Agriculture – How’s My Waterway for Mill Creek (attached as Ex. C)
(https://mywaterway.epa.gov/waterbody-report/MA-DEP/MA96-37/2022) (reporting Mill Creek, which flows into Mill
Pond and Short Wharf Creek, as “impaired” for shellfish harvesting in 2014, 2016, 2020, and 2022 due to fecal coliform).
10 See S. Washaya & D. Washaya, Benefits, Concerns, and Prospects of Using Goat Manure in Sub-Saharan Africa,
Pastoralism 13:28 (Nov. 14, 2023) (https://pastoralismjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13570-023-00288-
2#:~:text=The%20manure%20extraction%20from%20a,without%20which%20environmental%20pollution%20ensues)
; Miniature Horse Talk (Jan. 28, 2010) (https://www.miniaturehorsetalk.com/threads/how-much-manure-does-a-mini-
make.114477/).
11 See Agri-Farming, How to Make Goat Manure Compost: A Step-By-Step Guide,” Agri-Farming (Sept. 9, 2024)
(https://www.agrifarming.in/how-to-make-goat-manure-compost-a-step-by-step-guide-to-using-in-your-garden-farm#);
Zi Jun-Qing, Liao Shao-Hua & Guo Jie, Investigation of Components in Donkey Feces, Journal of DaLi Univ. Vol. 9,
Issue (4): 59-60 (2010) (http://journal15.magtechjournal.com/Jwk_dlxyzk/EN/Y2010/V9/I4/59).
3 of 6
surrounding 88/100 Mill, which the Town, DEP, and EPA have already recognized as
requiring extra protection.12 All three of these estuaries are conditionally approved Shellfish
Growing Areas.13 Also, such exceedances, which enable invasive Phragmites to outcompete
native plant species, have helped promote the growth and spread of invasive Phragmites in
Mill Pond.14 Further, such exceedances would pose risk to the swimmers, kayakers, and
fishermen who use these areas daily. Given its ongoing multi-phase nitrogen abatement
program, the Town should actively avoid perilous, costly new exceedances.15
3. Impermissible Location of Stables, Pens, and Pasture: As the applicant’s Plan shows,
the proposed barn, lower areas of pasture northeast of it, pen on 100 Mill (“Lot B”), and
much of the pasture along Mill Creek are within 250 feet of Mill Pond and Mill Creek, both
of which are sources of shellfishing. This appears to violate Chapter 202 (“Stables”) of the
Town’s Board of Health Regulations for stables, corrals, and paddocks.16
4. Flood-Related Risks: According to the Project Narrative and Plan, 9.8 of 88 Mill’s 15 acres
are wetlands and 88/100 Mill is largely surrounded by water—Salt Marsh, Coastal Bank, and
River (i.e., Mill Creek) to the north, a large wetland area on the eastern part, a freshwater
wetland on the southeastern part, Mill Pond to the south and southwest, and Mill Creek
arcing from Mill Pond toward the Bay along the northwest and the abutting property just to
the west (108 Mill Lane). Significant northern and southern parts of 88/100 Mill are in or
abut FEMA’s highest-risk Special Flood Hazard Area (i.e., Zone AE and the high-velocity
wave action Zone VE, the latter of which the Plan does not label).17 Also, the entire area
from the Mill Lane-Water Street intersection past the barn along Water Street through Wharf
12 See Town of Yarmouth Sewage Discharge Permits Health Regulation (Apr. 7, 1989)
(https://www.yarmouth.ma.us/DocumentCenter/View/816/Yarmouth-Sewage-Discharge-Permit-Reg---2000-
GPD?bidId=).
13 See Town of Yarmouth, “Yarmouth Water: The Nitrogen Problem in Yarmouth) (Nov. 2019)
(https://www.yarmouth.ma.us/DocumentCenter/View/12939/The-Nitrogen-Problem-in-Yarmouth); MassMapper of
88 Mill Lane with Coastal and Marine Features
(https://maps.massgis.digital.mass.gov/MassMapper/MassMapper.html?bl=MassGIS%20Basemap__100&l=massgis%
3AGISDATA.DEP_MOR_ARC__GISDATA.DEP_MOR_ARC%3A%3ADefault__ON__100%2COrthos_2001____
ON__100&b=-70.99551244275322%2C42.2152965185502%2C-70.80874486462824%2C42.317812524427325). The
Town’s late July 2025 email exchange with MA Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) did not note the close proximity or
steep downgradient between the proposed animal areas and the Shellfish Growing Areas. Even without that, DMF
replied that the applicant must implement a waste management plan and ensure “no runoff or animal waste or associated
nutrients into nearby wetlands or waterways.” The applicant has submitted no such plan; absent such a plan and an
opportunity for public comment, the Commission should not issue an Order of Conditions allowing agricultural use.
14 See Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources, “Phragmites: Considerations for Management in the Critical Area”
(https://dnr.maryland.gov/criticalarea/Documents/Phragmites-Fact-Sheet-Final.pdf) (“Research has shown that the
spread of the invasive plant [Phragmites] is accelerated by … excess nutrients, particularly nitrogen” and that it is “an
ecological problem because it will choke out and displace native wetlands plants”); Town of Yarmouth, “Local
Comprehensive Plan,” Ch. 11-Wetlands, at 11-9 (Dec. 2014) (attached as Ex. D) (reporting even then that “a significant
amount of Phragmites is growing” in Mill Pond and requires remediation).
15 See APCC, “Yarmouth Stormwater Project: Improving Water Quality” (2024) (attached as Ex. E)
(https://apcc.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Public-Meeting-2024-YS-Intro-Presentation.pdf) (identifying nitrogen
and shellfish closure reductions and improved wildlife habitat and water quality for shellfishing and recreation as Town
priorities).
16 See Town of Yarmouth Board of Health Stables Regulations (adopted Apr. 7, 1981)
(https://www.yarmouth.ma.us/DocumentCenter/View/807/Town-of-Yarmouth-Stable-Regulations?bidId=).
17 See FEMA Flood Map Service Center for 88 Mill Lane, Yarmouth Port, MA (attached as Ex. F)
(https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search).
4 of 6
Lane’s Salt Pond are within the Commonwealth’s 2050 Flood Risk Model.18 The Project’s
proposed alterations and use of 88/100 Mill could exacerbate the adverse impacts of
flooding on the surrounding waters and lands, and the wildlife and people who use them.
5. Waterway Impact. The Project Narrative simply asserts that the proposed alteration of 27
sq. ft. within 100 ft of 88/100 Mill’s Riverfront Area, alteration of 180 sq. ft. of Land Subject
to Coastal Storm Flowage, and installation of 2 inch-post chain-link, iron, or welded wire
fencing, likely 5-6 ft. from the ground and within 10 feet of wetlands, will not adversely
impact these areas. Given the fragility of the coastal ecosystem on and bordering 88/100 Mill,
this unsupported assertion and potentially adverse impact are significant concerns.
6. Failure to Meet Performance Standards and Perform a Valid Alternatives Analysis:
Mill Creek is a Perennial Stream, as the Plan “Inner Riparian Zone” and “Outer Riparian
Zone” labels signal and DEP River Mouth maps confirm.19 Thus, a 200-foot-wide
Riverfront Area on both sides of Mill Creek is subject to strict performance standards. The
applicant has not shown that this area does not play a significant role in protecting the
groundwater, providing flood control, preventing storm damage and pollution, and
protecting shellfish, wildlife habitat, and fisheries.20 Nor has the applicant rigorously
evaluated the costs, technology, proposed use, and logistics of alternative site locations and
configurations that would avoid impacting this area. Nor has the applicant proven by a
preponderance of the evidence, as 310 CMR 10.58 requires, that no practicable, equivalent
alternatives with less adverse effects exist and that the proposed work will not have a
significant adverse impact on this area.21
Instead, the applicant sets out the header “Alternatives Analysis,” simply asserts that
a large portion of proposed fencing inside the Riverfront Area is acceptable, and dismisses
the fencing as exempt “minor activity” under 310 CMR 10.02(2)(b)(1)(b). This approach
ignores that subsection’s requirement that the applicant show that the fencing won’t obstruct
wildlife movement, which it would; bobcats, coyotes, foxes, rabbits, and other wildlife are
often seen crossing the bordering conservation land along Water Street.22 More significantly,
this approach ignores the applicant’s duty to seriously analyze alternatives, such as whether
fewer farm animals might lessen the Riverfront Area’s nitrogen load and thereby avoid risks
such as toxic algae blooms and Phragmites in Mill Creek.23 Further, much of the proposed
fencing is within 10 feet of wetlands, which violates Section 6.01 of the Town’s Wetlands
Bylaw Regulations that prohibits fertilizer (e.g., manure) within 35-50 feet of these areas.24
18 See MassGIS Data Hub for 88 Mill Lane, Yarmouth Port, MA, with Mass. Flood Risk Model 2050 Layer
(https://gis.data.mass.gov/apps/faa82d378f0c43989b54586176c83bb8/explore).
19 See MassGIS Data Hub for 88 Mill Lane, Yarmouth Port, MA, with Coastal and Marine Features: Mouth of the River
(https://maps.massgis.digital.mass.gov/MassMapper/MassMapper.html?bl=MassGIS%20Basemap__100&l=massgis
%3AGISDATA.DEP_MOR_ARC__GISDATA.DEP_MOR_ARC%3A%3ADefault__ON__100%2COrthos_2001__
__ON__100&b=-70.99551244275322%2C42.2152965185502%2C-70.80874486462824%2C42.317812524427325).
20 See 310 CMR Sec. 10.58 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/massachusetts/310-CMR-10-58).
21 Id.
22 See 310 CMR Sec. 10.02(2)(b)(1)(b) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/massachusetts/310-CMR-10-02) (“The
following minor activities …: (b) Fencing, provided it will not constitute a barrier to wildlife movement”).
23 See 310 CMR Sec. 10.58(4) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/massachusetts/310-CMR-10-58).
24 See Sec. 6.01 of Town of Yarmouth Wetlands Bylaw Regulations (eff. Oct. 31, 2024)
(https://www.yarmouth.ma.us/DocumentCenter/View/19375/Wetland-Bylaw-Regulations-10312024).
5 of 6
Wildlife-Related Concerns
1. Wildlife Migration and Activity Risk: The proposal provides insufficient detail on fencing,
including its height and which sections, if any, will be electrified. Fencing, its installation, and
resulting human incursions into adjoining natural areas on and near 88/100 Mill’s developed
areas could obstruct vital wildlife corridors. Yet, the proposal is silent on the proposed
fencing’s potential impact. A biological survey and impact assessment should be conducted.
2. Animal-to-Animal Disease Risk. On July 15th, the Massachusetts Dept. of Health confirmed
the first animal case of West Nile Virus (WNV) this year—it was in a goat.25 There is a real risk
that diseases from the goats (e.g., WNV, rabies, Q-Fever, giardiasis, salmonellosis), donkeys
(e.g., EEE), or their excrement or used soil (e.g., tetanus) could be transmitted to the birds and
other wildlife that inhabit the nearby NHESP’s Priority and Estimated Habitats of Rare
Species and Wildlife, Water Street’s conservation land, and Mill Pond and Mill Creek areas.26
3. Predator Risk. The applicant’s Plan dated May 29, 2025 acknowledges the need “to protect
livestock from predator threats, especially coyotes” but delays “complet[ion] [of] predator
fencing” until Year 3. This could attract more coyotes to the neighborhood, threatening local
wildlife (e.g., deer, rabbits) and many residents’ dogs. The applicant offers no mitigation plan.
4. Rodent/Insect-Related Risk. Animal waste, particularly when left on an open-air concrete
pad as the applicant proposes, attracts rodents and insects, often necessitating the use of
lime-based cleaners, rat poison, and insecticides.27 Further, if the farm animals will eat food
other than pasture grass, the food storage area will attract rodents, insects, and local
wildlife.28 The applicant’s brief, general, late-submitted Addendum fails to adequately address
the risk that these chemicals and food storage effects could adversely impact the surrounding
waters, wildlife, and recreators.
Unspecified Business Operations Concerns
1. The applicant mentions several potential businesses, including a creamery, dairy, farm-share
delivery service, retail store, and goat-based invasive plant management services, without
25 See Mass. Dept. of Public Health, “State Health Officials Announce First Animal Case of WNV in Massachusetts
(Corrected)” (July 15, 2025) (attached as Ex. G) (https://www.mass.gov/news/state-health-officials-announce-first-
animal-case-of-wnv-in-massachusetts-corrected).
26 See MassGIS, NHESP Priority Habitats of Rare Species and Wildlife (attached as Ex. H)
(https://maps.massgis.digital.mass.gov/MassMapper/MassMapper.html?bl=2019%20Aerial%20Imagery__100&l=%20
massgis:GISDATA.ESTHAB_POLY__GISDATA.ESTHAB_POLY::Default__ON__100,massgis:GISDATA.PRIHA
B_POLY__GISDATA.PRIHAB_POLY::Default__ON__100,Basemaps_MapFeaturesforImagery____ON__100&b=-
72.78997618033765,41.80714914168836,-70.81243711783766,42.8699254870066); Virginia Tech, “Sheep and Goat Fact
Sheet: Occupational Safety and Health Information” (July 2022) (https://ehs.vt.edu/content/dam/ehs_vt_edu/osh-for-
animal-handlers/Sheep%20and%20Goats%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf).
27 See Four Star Veterinary Service, “Don’t Forget Rodent, Insect Control During Biosecurity Checks,” FSVS News
(Oct. 1, 2020) (https://4starvets.com/dont-forget-rodent-insect-control-during-biosecurity-
checks/#:~:text=Sanitation%20is%20crucial%20as%20flies,will%20reside%20at%20animal%20level).
28 See Cynthia McFarland, “Beyond Barn Cats: How to Keep Mice and Rats from Feeling at Home in Your Barn,”
Farnham – Stable Talk (Sept. 17, 2018) (https://www.farnam.com/stable-talk/beyond-barn-cats-how-to-keep-mice-and-
rats-from-feeling-at-home-in-your-barn#:~:text=Rodents%20love%20dark%2C%20damp%20areas,food%20sources%
20hard%20to%20access) (noting that not using metal feed bins, cleaning feed tubs after every meal, and sweeping up
any spilled grain are “a ‘dinner bell’ for rodents”).
6 of 6
providing any specifics. Before the Commission can properly evaluate the Project’s impact
on waters, wetlands, conservation land, wildlife, and recreation in the area, the applicant
must provide details on these businesses’ scale, machinery, outbuildings, and operations and
the public should have an opportunity to comment.
88/100 Mill is an integral part of a fragile coastal ecosystem and is not an appropriate place for
commercial farming operations of this scale. The property has not been used agriculturally in years,
and long-time neighborhood residents have noted major differences between 88/100 Mill’s past and
proposed uses, especially the commercial aspects. The applicant concedes that “[t]he site could
remain as is,” without land alterations, fencing, or commercial farming and other businesses. To help
keep our neighborhood a place where people want to live, we respectfully request that the
Commission fully address our concerns and deny the application (or at least substantially scale down
and modify it). What’s at stake is the potential demise of Yarmouth’s beautiful, historic, scenic, and
natural resource-rich oldest road (since 1638) and its surrounding waters, natural land, wildlife, and
neighborhood.
Very truly yours,
Joshua Stayn and Rachel Rosen
Ex. A: Contour Map of 88/100 Mill Lane
(Red curved lines indicate ~1 ft. gradient)
Ex. B: 2011 Annual Report (Excerpt)
Ex. C: EPA - Hows’ My Waterway for Mill Creek
Ex. D: Yarmouth Local Comprehensive Plan (Dec. 2014) – Ch. 11 – Wetlands (Excerpt)
Ex. E: APCC Yarmouth Stormwater Project Presentation to Town (2024) (Excerpts)
Ex: F: Current FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer for 88 Mill Lane, Yarmouth Port, MA
Ex. G: State Health Alert re First Animal Case of West Nile Virus
in a Goat in Massachusetts
Ex. H: Map of Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program
Rare Species and Wildlife near 88/100 Mill Lane