HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemorandum to Board of Health 73026 with attachmentsLAW OFFICES OF
WILLIAM C. HENCHY, LLC
165 CRANBERRY HIGHWAY TELEPHONE: (508) 255-1636
ROUTE 6A FACSIMILE: (508) 255-1325 ORLEANS, MA 02653 INTERNET: whenchy@alumni.tufts.edu
www.henchylaw.com
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Date:
Yarmouth Board of Health
William C. Henchy
Yarmouth Stable Regulation; Good Hope Farm 88-100 Mill Lane
July 30, 2026
Introduction
The Board of Health has held two public meetings at which it has taken comment on the
application of Good Hope Farm for a Stable License. The Board has expressed that it wishes to
hold another “work session” at which it will discuss the information received.
The Board has indicated that it wishes to have the assistance of Town Counsel to advise
on the issue of whether the prior variances, granted in 1988 and 1990 to the Bilezikian family to
operate the same barn and pastures that are presently applied for by Good Hope Farm run with
the land (as staff has advised), or whether the Board should, as requested by various neighbors,
require new variances to be obtained.
This Memorandum addresses this question. The record establishes the following facts:
1.On March 28, 1988, the Board of Health approved an application by Charles Bilizekian
for variances to keep 32 animals (a combination of sheep, Herford cattle, chickens,
ducks, and turkeys) within the existing barn and pastures as shown on the site plan of
Thomas E. Kelley Co., Engineers-Surveyors. The Board granted this license with the
condition that stabling and maintaining of animals must be as noted on the site plan,
and specifically, that no animals were allowed on the South Side of Mill Lane and
Water Street.
A copy of the site plan and vote of the Board dated March 28, 1988, are attached as
Exhibits “A-1” and “A-2”. The location of the barn and pastures approved in 1988 are
exactly where the present barn and pastures are located, and within all of the setbacks
then existing (50 feet from a property line or street, 250 feet from the high water mark
of any source of shellfishing), and as such, variances from those setbacks were granted
2
(See Chapter 202 of the Yarmouth Code, adopted by Yarmouth Town Meeting by
Article 16 of the April 7, 1981 Town Meeting).
2. On June 25, 1990, Health Agent David Mason wrote a letter to Mr. Bilizekian noting
that Mr. Mason had observed livestock on the pasture on the south side of Water Street
(Lot N2), in violation of the Board’s March 28, 1988, approval. Mr. Mason ordered
the livestock to be removed from the south pasture and directed that if Mr. Bilizekian
wished to use the south pasture, that a new application would be required.
Mr. Mason’s letter of June 25, 1990, is attached as Exhibit “B”. On August 10, 1990,
Mr. Mason wrote again, to Attorney Henry Murphy representing Mr. Bilizekian, that
his client’s request for variances to allow cattle to graze on the South Pasture would be
heard by the Board on August 20, 1990. (See Exhibit “B-1”)
3. On August 20, 1990, the Board of Health approved the variances from the setback to a
shellfishing area, two variances from the setback to a street, one setback from Mr.
Booth’s property line, but denied the request for a variance from the setback from an
abutting home (Mr. James Booth). (See Minutes of August 20, 1990 public hearing,
Exhibit “B-2”)
4. On August 21, 1990, Charles Bilizekian applied for a Stable license to keep 6 White
Faced Herefords, 2 goats, 16 laying hens, 18 turkeys, and 8 sheep on the premises,
including the South Pasture. See Exhibit “C-1”.
5. On August 22, 1990, the Board of Health granted two stable licenses for 88 Mill Lane—
for one Donkey, and for 6 White Faced Herefords, 2 goats, 16 laying hens, 18 turkeys,
and 8 sheep, with the proviso of “Only 6 beef cattle on south pasture”. See Exhibit “C-
2”.
6. The Board of Health thereafter issued stable licenses each and every year from 1988—
2009, including the three years (2007, 2008, and 2009) following the adoption of the
current Stable Regulation, which contains the same setbacks as the town’s Stable by-
law, Chapter 202 of the Yarmouth Code.
There is zero evidence, and none has been offered, that the operation of the farm has ever been the
subject of a complaint that any health issue exists or ever existed, nor any contamination of any
water body, nor contamination of any shellfish bed.
In summary, the Board of Health approved variances from setbacks to the high water of any source
of shellfishing in its approval of the 1988 Thomas E. Kelley Co. site plan (Exh A-2) and again for
the entire site including the South Pasture on August 20, 1990. The Board issued annual Stable
license renewals pursuant to these approvals continuously from 1988—2009.
The Board did not place any limitations on the duration of these variances whatsoever. Moreover,
at no point in time has the Board of Health seen fit to revoke or modify these variances, nor has it
3
given notice to any owner of the locus, past or present, of any cause that it would have to revoke
or amend these variances, nor held any public hearing on such modification or revocation.
Analysis
1. The Variances Have No Expiration Date, Apply to 88 Mill Lane, and Were not
Limited to the Bilezekians
The 1981 version of Chapter 202 (the by-law), under which these variances were granted, states
at Section 202-14 that “The variance provisions of Article I of the State Sanitary Code shall apply
in this Regulation”.
The 2007 version of Chapter 202 (the Board’s Stable Regulation adopted April 2, 2007, states at
Section 202-14 that “The variance Provisions of Article I of the State Sanitary Code shall apply to
this Regulation”.
The Variance provisions of Article I of the State Sanitary Code (105 CMR 400) are contained at
105 CMR 400.800.
105 CMR 400.800(B) deals with the expiration of Variances granted pursuant to Article 1 of the
State Sanitary Code. That section states as follows:
Expiration, Modification, Suspension. Any variance or other modification authorized to be made
by this article may be subject to such qualification, revocation, suspension, or expiration as the
board of health expresses in its grant. A variance or other modification authorized to be made
by this article may otherwise be revoked, modified, or suspended, in whole or in part, only after
the holder thereof has been notified in writing and has been given an opportunity to be heard,
in conformity with the requirements for an order and hearing of 105 CMR 400.400 and 400.500.
(emphasis added)
The only conditions that the Board made in its grant of the variances was (1) with respect to the
1988 approval, that the keeping of livestock be in accordance with the site plan (the same site plan
as in the present application) and (2) that there be no livestock on the south pasture.
The only conditions placed on the 1990 variance approval were a limitation of the number of
livestock that could be grazed in the south pasture, and that the fence be located no less than 100
feet from Mr. James Booth’s home.
There was absolutely no expiration date stated in the 1988 or the 1990 approval. Nor were
the variances limited solely to Mr. Bilizekian. The variances were granted for 88 Mill Lane, which
is the parcel which Good Hope Farm seeks to use in its agricultural operations.
4
Thus, by virtue of 150 CMR 400.800(B), which is expressly incorporated into both the 1981 by-
law and the Board’s 2007 Regulation, the variances granted in 1988 and in 1990 all remain in
effect.
This is in accordance with the law governing Zoning Variances as well. Where the Board’s
approved variance does not include an expiration date, the approval remains with the land. See e.g.,
Huntington v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 710, 716 (1981), citations omitted (through
which the Court underscored “the generally accepted principle that ‘a variance applies to the land
rather than to its current owner, and . . . runs with the land when it is conveyed to [another] person.”).
In fact, the undersigned is aware of no case in which a Board of Health variance expired because of
a period of non-use or because of a conveyance of the property, unless (as required by the regulation)
the Board made provision for such expiration or termination at the time of the grant of the
variance.
Moreover, 150 CMR 400.800(B) prohibits such a result. The Board cannot modify or revoke a
previously granted variance without good cause, notice of an Order, and an opportunity to be heard,
none of which have happened. Any such act would be entirely arbitrary and capricious.
This Board granted variances to the prior property owner not once, but twice. Both variances remain in
effect, are not expired, run with the land, and cannot be revoked, modified, or suspended in whole or in
part, absent good cause, notice in writing to the landowner, and an opportunity to be heard in compliance
with the requirements for enforcement hearings set forth in 105 CMR 400.400 and 400.500.
2. The Reach of the Regulation Exceeds the Board’s Authority Pursuant to G.L. c. 111
sec. 155
The Definitional sections of both the 1981 By-law and the 2007 Regulation define “Stable” as
follows:
STABLE—Any Building, lot, structure, premises or portion thereof where a farm animal
Or animals are kept or maintained for any purpose (See Chapter 111, Section 155 of the
General Laws)
This definition, while it references G.L. c. 111 sec. 155, is in direct conflict with the authority
conferred to a Board of Health under that statute. G.L. c. 111 sec. 155 provides as follows:
Section 155: Licensing of stables in cities and large towns; fees
Section 155. No person shall erect, occupy or use for a stable any building in a city, or in
a town having more than five thousand inhabitants, unless such use is licensed by the
board of health, and, in such case, only to the extent so licensed. The fee for such licenses
shall be established in a town by town meeting action and in a city by city council action,
and in a town with no town meeting by town council action, by adoption of appropriate
by-laws and ordinances to set such fees, but in no event shall any such fee be greater than
forty dollars. This section shall not prevent any such occupation and use authorized by
5
law on May fourth, eighteen hundred and ninety-five, to the extent and by the person so
authorized, but the board of health of such a city or town may make such regulations or
orders as, in its judgment, the public health requires relative to drainage, ventilation, size
and character of stalls, bedding, number of animals and storage and handling of manure
in any stable in its city or town. (emphasis added)
By its plain terms, G.L. c. 111 sec. 155 defines stables as buildings, not lots, which is what the
Yarmouth Stable By-law and Regulation purport to do.
It is a matter for Zoning to regulate the use of lots, and to create setbacks or dimensional
requirements. A strong argument can be made for the position that both the Stable by-law and the
2007 Stable Regulation are in fact zoning regulations that were adopted without the procedural
requirements required by the Zoning Act., and thus unenforceable except as set forth in Section 3
of this Memorandum, below. See, e.g. Rayco Investment Corp. v. Board of Selectmen of Raynham,
368 Mass. 385 (1975); Spenlinhauer v. Town of Barnstable, 80 Mass.App.Ct. 184 (2011), and
Good Hope Farm does not waive, and specifically reserves the right to argue this position, where
it proposes to engage in an exempt use (agriculture) on a parcel of land greater than five acres in
size. See, G.L. c. 40A sec. 3.
This is particularly so where the Yarmouth Conservation Commission has issued a detailed Order
of Conditions under the Yarmouth Wetlands By-law addressing management of the pastures, best
management practices, and stormwater runoff.
To the extent that these neighbors appealed the state wetlands act permit to MassDEP pursuant to
310 CMR 10.05, after detailed review, the DEP determined that the operation of the Good Hope
Farm would cause no alteration1 to any wetland resource area—specifically including Hallets Mill
Pond—and issued a Superseding Negative Determination of Applicability.
Any further regulation by the Board of Health with respect to runoff issues would be ultra vires
and, as noted by the Chair of the Board of Health repeatedly on July 20, 2026, have already been
decided by the Conservation Commission and by MassDEP.
1 As noted at the Public hearing, the word “alter” in the DEP Wetlands Regulations (310 CMR 10.04) means the
following:
“Alter means to change the condition of any Area Subject to Protection under M.G.L. c. 131,
§ 40. Examples of alterations include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) the changing of pre-existing drainage characteristics, flushing characteristics, salinity distribution,
sedimentation patterns, flow patterns and flood retention areas;
(b) the lowering of the water level or water table;
(c) the destruction of vegetation;
(d) the changing of water temperature, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), and other physical, biological
or chemical characteristics of the receiving water.”
6
3. The Proper Application of the Stable By-law and Stable Regulation is the Board’s
Oversight of Manure, Drainage, Bedding, and Number of Animals In the Stable
Itself
As noted above, the General Laws plainly permit the Board of Health to regulate conditions in
the stable itself. As the statute states, the Board of Health “may make such regulations or orders
as, in its judgment, the public health requires relative to drainage, ventilation, size and character
of stalls, bedding, number of animals and storage and handling of manure in any stable in its
city or town.” These matters are plainly within the purview of the Board.
Here, the applicant has stated its farm management plan in detail. It proposes to clean the
pastures twice weekly as required by the Conservation Commission, and before any rainstorm.
Manure will be stored in a covered trailer inside a covered shed and taken off-site a minimum of
twice a week. Inside the stable, the animals will be housed in stalls, on pelleted shavings,
cleaned daily by on-site full-time employees.
Dr. Venezia, a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine with an undergraduate concentration in agriculture,
publicly stated that the Good Hope Farm management plan and Best Management Practices were
in his view “exemplary”.
As further evidence of the applicants’ “exemplary” practices, please see also the attached letter
dated July 27, 2026, from Dr. Isaac Angell, the applicants’ long-standing Veterinarian. He states
as follows:
“After caring for livestock on hundreds of farms throughout my veterinary career, I can
say without hesitation that Good Hope Farm stands among the finest-managed goat
operations I have encountered. The level of husbandry, sanitation, organization, and
attention to animal welfare is exceptional.”
To the extent that the Board has any concern about those matters that are within its purview
pursuant to G.L. c. 111 sec. 155, the applicant has addressed them.
CONCLUSION
Both the 1981 Stable by-law and the 2007 Stable Regulation incorporate by reference the
definition of Stable contained in G.L. c. 111 sec. 155 as well as the Variance Provisions of Article
I of the State Sanitary Code (150 CMR 400).
Pursuant to these State laws and the record made before the Board, the following conclusions
follow:
1. A Stable is a building, not a lot;
7
2. The Board of Health has complete authority to regulate “drainage, ventilation, size and
character of stalls, bedding, number of animals and storage and handling of manure in
any stable in its city or town.”
3. No variance issued pursuant to Article I of the State Sanitary Code expires unless the
Board of Health says so in the original grant of the variance.
4. Variances were granted to the Bilezekians in 1988 and 1990 and have neither expired,
nor been revoked or modified;
5. The application by Good Hope Farm is for a Stable license is for the same pastures,
the same stable, and the same number of animals as the Board of Health approved
in 1988; and
6. The record of the Board’s proceedings reveals that Good Hope Farm Plan is, according
to an expert who is on the Board, “exemplary”.
The applicants respectfully request that their application for a Stable License be approved. They
operate a successful, well managed, and beautiful farm now, and wish to move their farm to
Yarmouth Port (See https://www.goodhopefarmny.com/gallery ).
They performed all of the correct due diligence before purchasing their property, and have been
consistently advised by Board of Health staff that no new variances are necessary (See email from
Health Agent Jay Gardiner to applicant’s Counsel John Kenney Esq., dated February 13, 2025,
attached as Exhibit “D” and statements made by staff at the last two public hearings).
The applicants have been subjected to a deluge of malicious and false misinformation circulated
to their neighbors and to Town officials (See Exhibits “E-1” and “E-2”). They were forced to
litigate a baseless and frivolous appeal to Mass DEP. And they have been publicly maligned in
two successive Board of Health hearings in July, 2026.
The Board should bring this to an end. Rather than pursue the highest and best financial use of
this waterfront property in Yarmouth Port, which could be any number of remunerative
development options, the Brahmst family wishes to relocate their beautiful farm to Yarmouth Port,
and raise 30 miniature goats, 2 miniature donkeys, and make this their permanent home.
That said, I respectfully suggest that there is nothing unusually complex about this application.
The applicants are seeking a stable license for property that already benefits from valid, existing
8
variances. They are requesting no more animals than the number permitted under the Board’s own
regulations, and the application is otherwise compliant with applicable Board of Health
requirements. This matter is capable of being decided on the existing record without the need for
further extended proceedings.
The Board should grant the application and allow the applicants to proceed.
Respectfully submitted,
__________________________
William C. Henchy
6030 ROUTE 82, STANFORDVILLE, NY 12581
P: (518)398-5353 Email: bentleyvet@gmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
July 27, 2026
To the Members of the Yarmouth Board of Health:
I am writing on behalf of my client, Natasha Brahmst, owner of Good Hope Farm. I understand that the Board is presently considering her application for a stable license in connection with the proposed relocation of her farm to Yarmouth Port,
Massachusetts. My purpose is to share my professional observations based upon my firsthand experience serving as the attending veterinarian for her goat herd.
Bentley Veterinary Practice has provided veterinary care for Good Hope Farm since 2020. During that time, I have visited the property on numerous occasions and have become well acquainted with both the animals and the manner in which the farm is managed.
After caring for livestock on hundreds of farms throughout my veterinary career, I can say without hesitation that Good Hope Farm stands among the finest-managed goat operations I have encountered. The level of husbandry, sanitation, organization, and attention to animal welfare is exceptional.
In my professional opinion, Good Hope Farm represents one of the finest examples of small-ruminant husbandry that I have encountered in my years of veterinary practice. The level of attention devoted to the health, comfort, nutrition, cleanliness, and overall welfare of the goats is exemplary. Preventive veterinary care is embraced, recommendations are
implemented promptly, and any health concerns are addressed with diligence and genuine concern for the animals' well-being.
The property itself has consistently been maintained in an orderly, sanitary, and conscientious manner. It reflects
thoughtful management and careful stewardship rather than merely adequate animal care. It is evident that Ms. Brahmst approaches the care of her animals with both knowledge and deep personal commitment. Her farm is one of those uncommon places where excellent animal care, meticulous management, and genuine compassion come together to create
an environment in which both animals and people flourish.
My comments are limited to those matters within my professional expertise and to observations I have personally made while serving as the herd veterinarian. I offer them in the hope that they may assist the Board as it evaluates the quality of
husbandry, sanitation, and animal care associated with Good Hope Farm.
Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions regarding my professional observations.
Respectfully,
Dr. Isaac Angell, DVM Owner and Veterinarian Bentley Veterinary Practice, PLLC