Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic comments Messier CA response 8.8.2025 and 9.3.2025Attention!: This email originates outside of the organization. Do not open attachments or click links unless you are sure this email is from a known sender and you know the content is safe. Call the sender to verify if unsure. Otherwise delete this email. From:DiRienzo, Brittany To: Subject:RE: Conservation Commission questions and comments Date:Friday, August 15, 2025 12:21:00 PM Hello Paul, Yes, I will include this in the public comments. The DMF correspondence is available in the database linked below, and the most recent submission yesterday from the applicant details the proposed BMPs (revised materials folder). https://lf.yarmouth.ma.us/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=2009707&dbid=0&repo=LASERFICHE Regards, Brittany DiRienzo Conservation Administrator Town of Yarmouth bdirienzo@yarmouth.ma.us 508-398-2231 x1288 Conservation Website From: Paul Messier < Sent: Friday, August 15, 2025 12:04 PM To: DiRienzo, Brittany <BDiRienzo@yarmouth.ma.us> Cc: Subject: Re: Conservation Commission questions and comments Dear Ms. DiRienzo, Thank you for the helpful clarifications. We appreciate your time. The recommendations of the shellfish constable and DMF would be of great interest and perhaps these reports could be part of the public record? Could you share a link the applicable BMP? The document we've been seeing looks more like a flier presupposing landlocked sites. We'd be happy if you included our letter in the matter's Public Comments folder. Best wishes, Laura Paul Paul Messier From: DiRienzo, Brittany <BDiRienzo@yarmouth.ma.us> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2025 2:16:27 PM To: Paul Messier < Subject: RE: Conservation Commission questions and comments Hello, The commission may require a burden of proof for any claim made by the applicant. They may also seek a professional consultant under 53G (section 2.06 of the local regulations) if necessary. I believe the applicant will provide what has been asked for regarding the water quality BMPs without the commission requiring an outside consultant. The applicant is required to notify abutters under the Act, and engages the required state and local entities when necessary, but none are triggered with this project. These may include the army corps of engineers, Division of Marine Fisheries and the town waterways and shellfish advisory committee (when projects are below Mean High Water) and the natural heritage and endangered species program(there is no priority or estimated habitat triggered). The Commission pre-emptively engaged the shellfish constable and DMF for concerns, and the applicant engaged with NRCS, though neither was required. Our commission reviews projects solely under the local wetland bylaw and state wetlands protection act; it is the applicant’s responsibility to pursue the rest of any required permitting. I would recommend you speak with the applicant directly for more information on the rest of their permitting process, it any exists. Applicants present their proposals and often provide background information to ground the project and give details they believe may help with their permitting success. Some consultants give a lengthy presentation and take advisement from their clients to include certain components to ensure they are part of the video record, while others keep a presentation short knowing the commission has already reviewed the application in detail. Public comment is just that, and the commission nor the applicant are required to respond to written or in person comments and questions. I assure you that they take these items under consideration. Please let me know if you have further questions. Regards, Brittany DiRienzo Conservation Administrator Town of Yarmouth bdirienzo@yarmouth.ma.us 508-398-2231 x1288 Conservation Website From: Paul Messier < Sent: Friday, August 8, 2025 3:18 PM To: DiRienzo, Brittany <BDiRienzo@yarmouth.ma.us> Subject: Conservation Commission questions and comments Attention!: This email originates outside of the organization. Do not open attachments or click links unless you are sure this email is from a known sender and you know the content is safe. Call the sender to verify if unsure. Otherwise delete this email. Brittany DiRienzo, Conservation Administrator Town of Yarmouth Dear Ms. DiRienzo, We attended last night’s meeting of the Conservation Commission and, after reflecting on it, have questions and comments for the Commission to consider regarding the proposed farm at 88/100 Mill Lane. Introducing agribusiness into an ecologically sensitive area carries undeniable risks. Is there a way for the Conservation Commission to help the community better understand these risks? Objective risk evaluation should be a data-driven, scientific process. Throughout the meeting, we hoped to hear an unbiased, professional assessment—especially regarding issues such as the effectiveness of the proposed manure removal and storage plan, and the potential for runoff during rainstorms. Will the town require a study by qualified experts to address questions like these? While we appreciate the Commission’s communication with Yarmouth residents, we are concerned about the lack of involvement from other stakeholders, such as Barnstable’s Conservation Commission and Natural Resources Department. Although we are not fully clear on the details, it appears Barnstable administers shellfish licensing and manages openings and closings for Mill Creek and Hallet’s Mill Pond. We were interested to learn at the meeting about the Commonwealth’s investment in pollution remediation for the pond, and we wonder whether the state’s Division of Marine Fisheries may also have an interest. Does the Commission have a responsibility to identify stakeholders beyond abutters? We believe the discussion would have benefitted from a more comprehensive introduction to the town’s process for evaluating the proposal, including its effects on quality of life, commercial interests, environmental concerns, and agriculture. While we acknowledge that many of these issues lie outside the Commission’s scope, an overview of the process would reassure attendees that all relevant topics will be addressed in future forums. Even a brief outline of the overall procedural scope would reduce anxiety among those present and foster consensus around adhering strictly to a conservation agenda. Finally, we would like to comment on the administration of the meeting itself. We appreciated Chair Bernstein’s initial advice to focus on water quality concerns, but we were struck by the long, repetitive, misleading, and often irrelevant statements made by the owners’ proxies. Their comments seemed focused on establishing a history of continual agricultural use—a matter you correctly stated was not under consideration (and, frankly, insults the intelligence of neighbors). Proxies were allowed to speak at length, roaming stream of consciousness, while members of the public were regularly urged to be brief and stay on topic. The questions about transparency raised at the end of the meeting stemmed from this imbalance. We hope to attend the next meeting and ask you to please consider our questions and comments. We have both led complex organizations and have volunteered on various boards over the years, so we know this work is painstaking and often thankless. We respect the Commission’s efforts on behalf of the Yarmouth community. Sincerely, Laura Paul & Paul Messier 24 Thacher Shore Rd. Yarmouthport