HomeMy WebLinkAboutROSEN and STAYN Ltr to BOH (7-6-2026)1
July 20, 2026
Yarmouth Board of Health
1146 Route 28
South Yarmouth, MA 02664
Re: Opposition to Stable Permit and Animal Permit Applications – 88 Mill Lane
Dear Members of the Board:
We respectfully urge the Board to deny the applications for a Stable Permit and Animal Permits
for approximately 30 goats and 2 donkeys at 88 Mill Lane.
This proposal is not a continuation of the limited animal uses previously approved for this property.
It is a substantially larger, commercial goat breeding operation that would support multiple goat-
related businesses (e.g., dairy, creamery, goatscaping, farm-share delivery, on-site retail store) on
the site, generate far more animal waste than prior permits, and place that activity immediately
next to a restored shellfish resource. The application does not demonstrate compliance with the
Board’s Stable Regulations or adequately protect public health and nearby waters.
The Board should evaluate this application on its own merits under today's regulations and
today's environmental conditions—not as an extension of permits or variances issued under
different versions of applicable regulations more than three decades ago. The Stable Regulations
expressly provide that variance requests are considered on a case-by-case basis. Prior variances
therefore do not establish that this materially different proposal should be approved.
The permitting history illustrates how dramatically this proposal differs from every prior approval.
Every prior approval involved fewer animals and more frequent manure removal. The 1988
permit authorized no more than 10 hoofed animals with manure removed every 48 hours. The
1990 permit involved 17 hoofed animals with daily manure removal and a limited shellfish
setback variance. The 2008 permit authorized only 7 hoofed animals with daily off-site manure
disposal. In contrast, this application proposes an initial herd of 32 hoofed animals, anticipates
15 more goats per year through commercial breeding, and would generate more than 8 tons of
manure each year before accounting for offspring or bedding waste.
The Board's own records further show why the prior variance should not control this application.
During the 1990 hearing, Board members specifically discussed that Mill Pond had already been
closed to shell-fishing for 20 years due to bacterial contamination. Since then, the Town invested
substantial public resources and years of work to restore water quality and reopen Mill Pond to
shell-fishing in 2012. Notably, this was after the last animals were removed from the property
and the then-owners sold it to a buyer who had no animals on the site until Applicants arrived.
Even so, the EPA has continued to identify these waters as impaired for fecal coliform bacteria,
making protection of this restored shellfish resource and the public’s use of Mill Pond a central
consideration for the Board.
The application also appears inconsistent with the Stable Regulations, which require stables,
corrals, and paddocks to be set back at least 250 feet from the high-water mark of waters
associated with shell-fishing. Yet, Applicants’ most recent plan submitted to DEP appears to
2
propose manure storage, stables, and corrals far closer than that (less than <165ft)—and
potentially even closer (<100ft) depending upon how other, unspecified fenced areas are used.
Even the 1990 variance reduced the setback only to 190 feet. The current proposal therefore
seeks to place animals, their waste, and associated pollutants used to maintain their stables much
closer to an active shellfish resource than the Board has ever approved.
The Mass. Division of Marine Fisheries likewise directed during the Conservation Commission
review that there be “no runoff or animal waste or associated nutrients into nearby wetlands or
waterways.” Applicants identify no enforceable measures showing how that standard will be met.
The manure management plan is equally deficient. Despite the enormous volume of manure and
bedding waste this operation will generate, Applicants provide no detailed, property-specific
manure management plan or site-specific analysis showing how these materials and associated
pollutants, including fecal coliform bacteria and nitrogen, will be prevented from reaching
adjacent wetlands and Mill Pond.
Instead, Applicants offer only general assurances regarding vegetative buffers and manure
collection. Earlier permits required daily or every-48-hour manure removal despite involving far
fewer animals. This application instead proposes only an anticipated three-day pickup schedule
and does not explain how manure would be managed between pickups during heavy rain,
flooding, or other weather events. In addition, Applicants’ proposed manure shed is open on one
side rather than watertight as the Stable Regulations require, would be located on a high point
that steeply slopes down to wetlands and Mill Pond, and would be adjacent to a FEMA-
designated flooding and high wind area. That leaves little margin for error during heavy rain,
flooding, or high-wind events, and runs contrary to Massachusetts agricultural guidance, which
cautions against locating manure storage on sloping land or spreading manure near water
resources or on flood-prone land. Further, Applicants have not explained how manure from the
anticipated offspring or the bedding waste will be managed during winter or early spring, when
Massachusetts guidance discourages land application of manure.
The application likewise does not explain how rodents, flies, and mosquitoes attracted by
manure, feed, and bedding would be controlled, or whether pesticides, rodenticides, lime, or
similar materials would be used without creating additional risks to nearby wetlands and public
recreation areas. These issues are not merely theoretical. Last July, Massachusetts confirmed a
case of West Nile virus in a goat, reinforcing that livestock health and vector management are
legitimate public-health considerations where livestock are kept near homes and public
recreation areas.
The site's documented hydrology heightens these concerns. Engineering documents identified
runoff pathways toward Mill Pond and hydrologic connections through wetlands, catch basins,
and culverts. During the Conservation Commission proceedings, Applicants' engineer
acknowledged that stormwater can reach Mill Pond during significant storm events, and the
Commission's Order requires restoration of the culvert to maintain that flow. These documented
drainage pathways make this proposal directly relevant to the Town’s Stormwater Management
Regulations, which prohibit discharges of pollutants, including animal waste, nutrients, and
associated contaminants, to wetlands, drainage systems, and waterways. Nothing in the
application indicates how this volume of manure, together with urine, bedding waste, and
3
associated nutrients, will be prevented from reaching these connected water resources during
ordinary operations or storm events.
Rather than being asked to restart a use that ended more than 15 years ago, the Board is being
asked to approve a substantially larger commercial animal operation under today's regulations
and conditions. The Board’s responsibility is not to determine whether this use might succeed if
everything goes perfectly. It is to determine whether Applicants have demonstrated compliance
with the Board’s regulations and protection of public health and nearby waters. That burden has
not been met. Approving these permits would shift the risks of an inadequately supported
commercial animal operation onto neighboring residents, public recreation areas, and Mill Pond’s
restored shellfish resources. We respectfully request that the Board deny the requested permits.
Thank you for your careful consideration.
Very truly yours,
Rachel Rosen, MD and Joshua Stayn