Board of Health 7-6-2026

Call to order the July 6, 2026 meeting of the Armouth Board of Health. So, it's time to determine whether we have a quorum or not. Scott, are you here?

>> I am present.

>> Are you here?

>> Here.

>> Hillard. Okay, we have a quorum. That's great. So, let's go on.

Number three is public comment, opportunity for anyone from the audience here or anyone zooming in would like to make a statement. I don't see any hands on the >> No hands up >> just >> sure just do you want to be do you want to be do you want to be >> comment on the on the topics on the agenda or just in general >> in general it could certainly we prefer it's on a topic for sure >> so if if someone >> I'm Sorry. >> When the topics, every topic is called then you get public comment on that one specifically as well >> at that moment. Yes. But this is the time to spend most of your time at the mic. That's all.

>> No.

>> So just introduce yourself.

>> Sure. Um, I'm Brian Hardty, 14 Hilly Road, um, Yarmouth Port to talk about, um, the, uh, the goat farm, uh, specifically BHSG26-1 and BHST26-1. Uh, my wife and I are full-time residents, live roughly 50 yards from the Bronsts, very nice people. We've met them on walking. Um, we have a view of their beautiful property from three sides of our home and uh really really admire the property. Uh, we do have, my wife and I both have concerns about the impacts both short and long-term on the farm to the neighborhood to the waterways if a project is approved. We do oppose the scale of the farm because our concerns are the following but not limited.

Um, I feel like this is Groundhog Day. We were here not about a year ago with conservation. Now, we're here with board of health. Um, and I'm going to keep these specific to the board of health type of concerns. Um, we were presented, the public was presented, um, the farm best practice farm management and while extensive, it lacks a ton of detail. Okay, it's very high level. Um, more specifically, there are no specific details on mitigating the control of flies, rodents, and other pests attracted to the animal feed and waste. The plan is also missing detailed specifics on odors and what that detailed mitigation plan looks like. If this project is approved, I ask the board to determine strict conditions and ensure the documentation of said restrictions um so that we can enforce those down the road.

In addition to the above, uh we also have serious concerns on the animal noise, especially during feeding. It's my understanding that the animals are are can get loud. And then let's remember too that this area while beautiful is also a residential area and 99% of us are full-time residents there. Okay. Storm water runoff is another issue from the pasture and the manure compost pile into the mill pond impacting water quality, native plants, wildlife, fish, shell fishing. And then what will that impact be on the area 5, 10, 15, 20 years from now? No one knows. I feel like we're all part of this science experiment right now.

Um the proximity of the stable to the mill pond to house mill pond where there is active shell fishing everyone knows it's well under the Yarmouth regulation of 250 ft from that high tide watermark or that high water mark. Section 202 um-2D specifically states um not less than 250 ft from any high high water mark of any source of shell fishing. Well, that beautiful barn is, you know, a lot closer than 250. Impacts of animal waste runoff into the streets and the salt pond with the tidal waters coming in and out of the Mil Creek. What happens to recreational activities such as swimming, kayaking, fishing, everyone in the neighborhood is concerned. Uh, Fourth of July just happened. A lot of people around, families floating around on tubes under the bridge on Kevin Bridge. It's it's it was great to see, right? But what are those are those kids going to be able to do that down the road? No one knows. Okay. No one's taken any any water samples. There's no there's no standard I guess that's been set, you know, any measurements. So I do want the board of health to consider any and all these measures. Um I'm not I'm not adverse to the goats. I prefer six goats, not 30 with two donkeys. Um but you know I understand that we have to follow the law and respect respect the neighbors. Um but I did want my concerns heard. So thank you.

>> Yeah. Thank thank you for coming out. All this you know has re reappeared. Um, and just sir if there's some material that you would like to provide us.

>> I submitted my letter earlier.

>> Okay. Any other material. Um, it's helpful to get educated and so send it to the health department. This board will get it and spend time on it. So, if you have that kind of material, please send it.

>> Thank you.

>> Thank you. Anyone else?

>> Speakers and relevant to that topic now.

>> Sure. Absolutely. Won't you come up introduce yourself?

>> Yeah. My name is Paul Fitzgerald. Um, my wife and I live on Kevin Lane. We live next to the bridge adjacent to the mill pond. My property borders on the Mil Pond on both the Bonsible side on the Mil Pond side and on the estuary side. Um we have lived at Kevin Lane for about 45 years. Um we enjoy the resources. We swim, we fish, we kayak, we boat on that area. Um, with many of our friends and neighbors from both Yamouth Port and Bonstable. Um, as Brian was saying, if you happened by the bridge this past few days, you would see many people swimming and enjoying the cool temperatures of the water, especially my neighbors, the KDA family who came down in mass with 40 to 50 of their family and friends who then come to the bridge at the high tide. They jump off the bridge. They swim in the pond and in the bridge side and then when the tide turns they tube all the way down to the short wharf in Yamouthport. So it's a very well utilized resource.

Um this resource is precious to me and my family, the neighborhood and the local community. I'm speaking tonight to be certain your committee knows how important it is that you look out for the health of this special area for the many who love and use it. There were many years when the Hallet Mill Pond was closed to shellfishing and swimming secondary to the fecal contamination coming from Anony's restaurant. We are concerned about this possibility happening again. We are questioning the likelihood of runoff percolating from the pasture to the pond. We question the density of animals that are proposed and the storage of fecal matter next to the barn which is about 100 plus feet from the pond. Finally, we question why no offering of monitoring the safety of the runoff into the pond was offered by the application. Thank you for letting me speak.

>> Oh, by all means.

>> Any questions for me?

>> Thanks for coming up, board members.

>> Not at this time, though. Thank you. Um, the only question I had was I'm wondering if we should hold since there seems to be so many people commenting on this, we should wait until that comes up rather than I mean there are people here that aren't here for that reason and they're going to be delayed.

>> Oh, absolutely. People get another chance to come up once we work our way through the agenda. That's all.

>> Well, my my thought is that we could be here for quite a bit of time. I'm wondering how fair that is to people that are here for another reason.

>> I I I don't know is that >> people will be able to come up again when that topic is discussed, >> right?

>> So, we can move along on this.

>> Okay.

>> That's all.

>> I mean, we've always conducted that way. It's just >> it's usually not by the rules, but I think it's very helpful for the public.

>> Okay. Anyone else? Any hands up there?

>> So, are we waiting for that agenda item? What's Yeah, why don't why don't we just wait for it. It looks like that's that's the feeling here a little bit and you'll get the opportunity to certainly speak. So my eye is certainly not going to be on the clock. Okay. So everyone gets a fair shot at it and and share their thoughts, educate the board and so on. Okay. So let's let's call public comment as done. Okay. So number four on the agenda is the approval of grant funds.

>> Someone on Zoom for public comment.

>> Okay.

>> Hi. Is it Can you hear me? Okay.

>> Yes.

>> Yes, we can.

>> Sorry. I just My name is Rachel Rosen and I live at 128 Water Street. Um and I did just want to because I'm at work and um won't be able to stay on the whole time. I wanted to add to uh what you already heard. I know you're going to be talking about the 100 mil lane, but I am a gastronurologist and my business is fecal matter. Um, and I did just want to add to what was already brought up. Um, in particular the timeline that was discussed. We've done this experiment before. Um, when the Belellisians previously had this land, they had multiple animals on there, which is when Mil Pond was closed because of fecal contamination. And in fact, um, it was only after the Belellisakians moved out and the animals were removed that Mil Pond was open and it was reopened even before Anony's was closed. So, I want to be very clear about the timeline that the fecal contamination very much points to the Bellazians and having a farm there rather than um just Anony's.

Um, and I really want to stress that um, as you have heard, there's no plan for water monitoring. I would strongly advocate that the number of goats be relative to the amount of usable land, not the amount of total acreage. Um, because putting 40 goats and two donkeys on what's essentially 1.3 usable acres is extremely excessive. So, I just want that point to be heard before I have to log off. Thank you.

>> Thank Thank you. Okay. So let's move along here on the approval of the grant funds. Uh everyone had that in their packet and what I had done is just made up an equation for this and just added up um I guess what each board member who submitted the numbers just added up and divided by the number of board members. So just added up the amounts that's they wanted allotted and divided once again by the number of board members and that's where these numbers came from. So just trying to make sure that you know we all had input and it was you know equitable. So this is something we need to vote on tonight. So what are your thoughts board members? Um, I'm I'm fine with approving this, but I do have one concern that we only gave 5,000 to the VNA because in their presentation they said they serve 384 Yamouth residents. And I think that that's a lot of bang for our bucks and that they certainly they represent the health department in ways that the health department cannot do because of the small number of staff they have um and because of the volunteer board and and what we are able to do. So, that's my only comment about it, but I'm happy to make a motion to approve the uh human service grants awards as shown in our agenda packet.

>> Scott, Larry, thoughts.

>> I wasn't at that meeting, so I didn't.

>> Okay.

>> And I would agree with Mary um you know, as far as maybe a reallocation of some funds to the uh the VNA. Um, I'm, you know, content with the rest of it, but I would agree maybe we could maybe make a small adjustment there.

>> Uh, we can tonight. Tonight's time to do that. And if someone wants to uh make an adjustment numbers, we can do it now and then move along eventually to a vote on this tonight. So, we need the specifics of it to want money shifted from a different organization to the DNA or multiple um of these nonprofits. And Larry, you're part of it. You may not have been at that meeting, but certainly um you're on board with this.

>> I didn't even get a a copy was in the packet. Here you go.

>> I didn't see it in there. So, in the minute you can see what some of the nonprofits had requested and what they received last year. Uh, there were a couple of new uh organizations that sent in an application this year. Anyone. So once again, um it's there'll be a vote for the decision here for the what we saw in the packet. Um or it's making an adjustment voting on that. So we do need a motion one way or another. Do you have a suggestion, Mary, that that how you want to change it?

>> I I would I would probably um decrease some of the support here, but I think maybe if we could just keep that in mind for next year. Um I'm I'm happy with doing that and leaving this as is. The problem is there's a lot of need in our community, you know, and all of these organizations, they all came before us and they all are doing wonderful things to help the citizens in in our community. So, I I like seeing all of them get some of the small amount of funding that we have to award. Um, so I I make a motion that we approve the human service grants awards as shown in our agenda for this night's meetings with the thought that maybe we um think about increasing at least VNA next year come around.

>> Okay. Thanks.

>> I second that.

>> Any further discussion?

>> Okay. See is there none? All in favor raise your hand say I.

>> I.

>> Okay. Fine. Let's move move along.

>> Um it's always nice to give money away. Okay. Number five, 88 and 100 mil lane application for stable license and goat license. Um, and we heard about this quite some time ago. Um, Barry, when was the application submitted?

>> The application was submitted a week ago Monday. A week ago today from today >> to us.

>> To us. Yeah.

>> Okay. That I didn't see that in the packet I received.

>> They came in after that we had already posted the p posted the packets and put the packets together. So >> they were already out before they before it came in. So >> Okay. So we we haven't seen it as a board. Okay. Let's let's proceed.

>> Oh. Okay.

>> So what are we looking at from um this petitioner tonight? What what are they asking for? They're asking to They're looking for a stable permit for 30 goats and two small donkeys or 30 miniature goats and two donkeys.

>> Does it involve variances?

>> Um, there are variances with the property already that that stay with the property that were granted from the health department for the stable previously.

>> Thank you.

>> Yep. It's like a septic variance when >> if you move that stays in the ground and it's right.

>> So, >> well, there's problems.

>> Yeah.

>> And before we get started, what's the status of the stable regulation, you know, that I think was sent to town council for review, which and it wasn't based upon this. was really based upon having really old regulations that the board has not looked at. I think the last time this was revised was 2007, I think.

>> Yes, correct. Um, the town council is still in the process of re-reviewing the regulations that were have been updated through the our intern >> Mary. So, so they have but but that's the application is in before Sure. Oh, absolutely.

>> For the for this regulation and I did give you a copy of the um the the regulation in front of you also and a copy of the uh application. So,

>> okay, let's begin. Just introduce yourselves and welcome.

>> Uh thank you. I don't know if this mic is on, but uh thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the board of health. For the record, my name is John Kenny. I'm an attorney with the law office in Centerville. I come uh here before you this evening representing Good Hope Farm. Uh here with me uh this evening as well is attorney Bill Bill Henchie from law offices of William C. Henchie LLC in Orleans. Uh Dan Oer, professional engineer and professional land surveyor from Down Cape Engineering. Uh the proprietors of Good Hope Farm, Natasha and Oliver Brmps see behind me. And Leo Kunis, a local farm advocate and a long-term representative of the State Farm Bureau.

Mr. Chairman, I have um the service of United States Postal Service for notice of the ABA and for the uh an email uh notice with the town with authorization from uh the town administrator saying that the town is aware of the the meeting and has no problem uh going forward with it.

>> So there are two abunders and one's the town and another's >> correct >> somebody's residence I assume. You >> want me to give them to you or to Mr. Lewis?

>> Mr. Lewis can take it. Obviously, we're not going to sit and read and have people wait for that.

>> Thank you.

>> Um, we're we're here on behalf of Good Hope Good Good Hope Farm uh seeking a a stable license and a goat license and this was state at for the property at 88100 Mil Lane in Yamathport. The plans to have two miniature donkeys and 30 nigerian dwarf goats. As a little bit of background, it was one of the people that spoke talked about the Bill Zein family owning the property. They bought it in 1984. In March of 88, they applied for and received a stable license for 32 animals. At that time, they also applied and received a variance to allow the the corral and the fence to be less than 50 ft uh from the roadway. In August of 1990, they applied for and received variances relating to the location of the stable. There were multiple variances. Those have been submitted as part of uh the application. Uh since then the the fencing, the corral and the bond have all been continuously maintained in conformity with the with the prior approvals of of this board. Uh the Brmps acquired the farm in 2025 and fortunately I think for everybody in the neighborhood uh and and the town of Yamath and on the Cape uh their plan is to continue to use the property as as a farm as opposed to opening it up for further development such as some trophy luxury homes. They they proposed use of the property saves this property from future development at least for the time being. The good hope uh uh farm plan was reviewed and approved by the Tanyamoth Conservation Commission. The some of the opponents of the farm appealed to the mass D and the farm prevailed there and attorney Henchi whom I'm sure will address some of the uh comments that were made before this hearing was was opened uh handled that D appeal.

Um, if you read the variance, prior variances going back, it was either the 1988 or 1990 variance, there is a note in there about Mil Pond being uh closed for shell fishing. That was before the Bill Zakans put their 32 uh animals on the farm. Um, and I believe the U Mil Pond is closed for shellfishing currently and there are no animals in the farm. So to say that the closing of Mil Pond for shellfishing, etc. uh ties directly in line with the bill Zakans having animals on on the farms is frankly just not accurate.

Um as far as our waste management plan and how all that will be handled, uh I'm going to turn it over to Dan Osha, the engineer, and then we'll have have attorney Henchie address some of the claims that were made about the uh impacts on the waterways, etc. Dan,

>> good evening, chairman, members of the board. Uh for the record, Dan Ogula. a land surveyor and civil engineer with Down Cape Engineering in Yarmouthport and helping uh the Bronx to Good Hope Farm out with the permitting on the project. Um Natasha and Oliver are seasoned farmers. They've had a a beautiful farm in New York for over 11 years. They know what they're doing. It's a well-run operation down there and they hope to continue that up here.

Um, in order to uh satisfy all the conditions and concerns, we we've made some uh nice improvements to the property from even what the Bill Zakans were at and and what John said was accurate. Jerry Garnick had oldtime attorney had testified that had been closed 15 to 20 years before the Bill Zakans ever started the farm here. Helis Mil Pond had closure. So, um that's an accurate statement. But nonetheless, they instructed me to be extremely cautious, do whatever we can to prevent any impacts to Hellets Mill Pond. So to that event, uh there's some some important features that you should understand.

Um for future composting, uh up on the hill there in a closed structure, uh we made provisions for that, but you'll see um on on note B, um there's a a manure covered uh area. It's a a roofed covered uh on a concrete pad for the manure. Uh when you have issues with a with a farm, it's almost always related to odor uh and you know manure management practices. And so there's a dedicated drainage system in case something were ever to leak out of that trailer, but it's covered and and and and uh will be removed weekly, which is right for your guidelines. So, um, almost all the problems that you'll ever see is a big manure pile that nobody ever turns and it it goes bad and it it 100% a nuisance.

Um, Natasha and Oliver are going to live here. It's their home. They run a very clean operation now and they want to continue that. The last thing they want is is is any issues like that. And so what we we have done is kind of a twofold thing. uh for the uh we've created a a special swale and burm all along circling like a necklace around this barn. So any runoff that would come on the high side of this almost everything heads down uh towards a swale on the south side but to the extent that anything uh heads towards the mill pond we intercept it with a ditch and a little ridge along with a fence. And what that does is captures all that water and shunts it down to the low side and down there it spreads on hundreds and hundreds of feet of of of of a shallow swale. So you can see here what happens. We we build it up about 12 in. And so you've got about 6 feet by 12 in deep by hundreds of feet of storage capacity infiltration. So any uh although the manure, as you can read from the plan, will be picked up before storms and and trucked off site uh regularly uh to the extent that a small amount does, it'll enter a burm and dissipate. And you can see that's all along an even contour line. So it'll be a nice wide area and it'll all filter out and filter through that burm. And we submitted drainage calculation showing that that will uh indeed um filter and treat uh the runoff from from the storm. And again, that's moving to the east where there's a large freshwater drainage system, a little bit of saltwater intrusion, and then it heads out to the north. So you uh even if it were somehow breached, which we we say it will not, and the calculations show it weren't, it doesn't enter the mill pond. It's everything's moved away from there. And of course, the salt the salt marsh, as you know, is is generally a nitrogen sink that will take nutrients and and all day long. uh that will be infiltrated in the field on site which is a big improvement over even what was there before and again a nice interception note E covers that and the details on the plan to show that that fence and swale and burm shunts all the water down and spreads it out across the entire site so it's all kept away from the mill pond. So, we feel that between the uh high-end manure management with a a roofed sealed type structure, you lift up, put the put it in, close the cover, that'll keep the flies down, it'll keep the uh manure safe and and and and uh frequently brought off site to avoid odors. And then, uh to the extent that anything leaks out, it's a a sealed pad with with a drain to subsurface drainage. So nice uh robust state-of-the-art uh system for that manure management which is almost always uh the concern. Uh there's a beautiful flower garden over here. Um and uh again um it's a uh just a a beautiful property. It's landmark batched roof barn. All the stalls are still intact. The Bill Zakans also had a number of cows on the property or u number of animals in terms of pounds as much down from where they had licensed before. So, it's treading more lightly on the footprint. It's a beautiful property. Um, and I would it's a, you know, right to farm type state and we appreciate you working with us. I would say with respect to the to the wastewater, there's, you know, numerous theories on why that might be. I would point to people walking their dogs. There's there's unpicked up litter all along there and u you know there's there's anony's and but honestly waterfall it's a haven for huge geese and heron and and you know otter and all kinds of marine and and uh vertebrae and invertebrae that are that are in the water there. So who knows exactly where all that comes from but um ours is going to be shunted on site treated on site and uh simply will not be a problem. So to burden the farm with uh extra off-site testing, you know, I don't think that warrants it. Be glad to answer any questions if there are any.

>> Just to point out from 15t away, it's really hard to make out any of the details that you're pointing to. This is what was in the packet.

>> Yeah. Digitally you can zoom in on it.

>> It's tough to get the details. You're talking to five volunteers up here >> with not a lot of >> background interpreting all this. Just want to point that out for the public to be aware of that. This is pretty tough. This is what I understand was submitted >> to the uh department. Am I correct?

>> Well, the PDF uh is a full-size view plan 24 by 36. So, if you're operating on a computer system, you can zoom in and look at full scale. I if you print it out uh to scale to fit to an 8 and a half by 11, that's what comes out. But the image that was uh submitted online is full clarity digital perfect uh view. You can zoom in and look at it. Again, uh if you'd like full-size copies, we're happy to do that. Um if there's a continuence, you can certainly look at it for two weeks, however you would like to go.

>> So, was it submitted digitally and you copied it? Is that it?

>> It was online.

>> We're not looking at what they submitted because they submitted it digitally, >> right? And >> copied by the health department. So I mean we've been working together for years. Um generally we get a full scale plan for all the you know the septic variances that we do here. That's why I'm surp excuse me surprised that's all.

>> Yeah. No I I I would agree not all changes for the better but uh Natasha was instructed to do it just digitally and and so that's what we did. But I did notice in the PDF when you doing small small then it's a huge plan in that digital PDF. So, if you have the capability, certainly engineering department can print out full-size uh plans, but I I don't know if you want to change the policy or or ask for full-size paper, we're happy to do it. Um I I do prefer a large print myself.

>> Could you speak to um rodents and other pest?

>> Sure. Um so, um again, um Natasha and Oliver are seasoned farmers. They've had uh they're aware of rodent issues. They used uh sealed locking um legal cabinets to put feeding grain in that have zero zero holes in them and even a rodent uh whatever they are 8,000 PSI teeth can't get through steel. So that meets your regulation there. They're uh that's all all the feed. Of course, if it's out in the field, u you know, generally it'd be more looking like a you know, oats and hay. Um you know, there's dogs and and um and uh and other things. But um certainly what you can do is is make sure that the there's no holes in your feed bins, sealed floors, sealed uh steel enclosures with locks on them, and that that's how they handle it. And that the manure is picked up regularly.

>> Absolutely. So the manure uh yeah to the extent that u um before any rainfall we we will go out and uh generally the um the goats we move the feeding stations around. Uh so you know they have fresh grass when they leave but most of the waste is near the feeding station so it's fairly easy to rake up. But they take the little tractor out there, rake it up and run in the compost. and we've promised to keep an eye on the forecast and before any significant rainfall do an additional uh sweep up of the pastures. And it's not as ownorous as you'd think because uh she said that's usually right around the feed stations where you get 99% of the the manure.

>> Thank you. And how about the comment about usable acres of land?

>> So, um we're not grazing large animals. These are these are Nigerian dwarf goats. Um and uh they they don't have a huge uh mass. Um if you were talking about, you know, 2,000 lb heers, you know, it's it's you certainly need some acreage for those. But Natasha, with her experience in the number of pastures and the ability to rotate and move the feed stations is very comfortable in this. We do have the, you know, the fenced garden area would be, you know, potentially some expansion if ever needed, but she feels very comfortable with with the with the room that's here. um um because they simply uh are small hoof. They don't beat up the pasture. And I we should note that this pasture has a uh there's an on-site well, so we're not using any of your water, but they have an extensive irrigation system. One of the problems, you know, you think, oh, don't do irrigation. But when you have a drought like this, you want that grass and turf nice and healthy so it can absorb the uh the nutrients and and not um die off and and create dusty runoff. So to that extent, they're going to keep the uh on-site irrigation well and keep it looking nice and lush uh for uh the environment as well as for the for the goats.

>> Can I sorry can I just answer that as well?

>> Um >> Natasha Brahms >> Dan Natasha Brahms good evening everyone. Um Dan did a was absolutely correct. Just a couple quick things to add. Um our irrigation system at home is on a it's on actually a timer. It does not go if it's wet or raining. It's all it's all automated and we control that manually. So there's not a condition here. There's never muddiness or wetness in our pastures. Number one. Number two, we're very very active to Dan's point on ensuring that they're healthy pastures. Goats generally do not eat off the pasture. They're haydriven, at least mine. Um but I just wanted to share that. And then one additional comment, we actually have quite extensive, we do not have a fly issue at home. We use fly all natural fly predators and we just don't have waste around or food around to attract rodents or flies. It's honestly not an issue for us thankfully. I

>> I have a question for you. Um the farm in New York, what kind of animals and what kind of size was it?

>> So So we still have the farm. Um, it's actually we have over 50 goats, so we're downsizing to to align with your regulations actually. Um, it's an hour north of New York City in a very dense neighborhood. Um, we're very loved in the community, I must say. Uh, and we've we've had no issues. We live there, as Dan mentioned, and uh really love our community.

>> And how big is the farm?

>> So, it is 27 acres. 25 acres. Um, but again, to Dan's point, the goats are actually on much less. They're probably on uh an acre or threequarters of an acre. They just don't that's not, you know, I don't have them roaming like that. They're paddocked.

>> Thank you.

>> By contrast, it's about 11 acres including the wetland here. And Natasha has committed to buying that same storm sensitive system that actually goes on the internet, looks when the rain is coming, and cuts out the irrigation uh when needed. And she's committed to installing that system in the barn. Now,

>> there was a comment about usable acreage and density of animals. What can you tell us about that?

So there's, you know, this um again um you know, manure management is the most important part and you know how big the animals are and how much damage they'll do to the turf is always a factor. Um uh your regulations do talk about you know animals per acre which would meet that technically but you know the small size you couldn't be horses with your regulation versus these little goats. So world of difference. Um some of the uh other agencies look at you know tons per acre and so forth uh in terms of the animal mass and we're right within those guidelines even for a grazing animal and as Natasha said these generally just eat the hay that you put out. They don't even eat the turf. So um we feel very comfortable with a managed uh area and uh keeping after the um keeping after the manure uh and and and carefully managing it. Uh there will be absolutely no problems with the with the density of this farm.

>> What are the goats kept for?

>> Um well meat and breeding but uh milk would be a third thing that they'd look at maybe in the future. Just leave it.

>> So currently it's it's >> you have to come to mic otherwise the public can't hear you.

>> Um currently it's it's animal husbandry. Um, basically, uh, like we discussed with the commission, there's no current intention to do more than that. If we intended to do anything more than that, we'd be right back in front of you. So, it's that's it. If I could make a comment, um there's a big difference in farm animal wastes and their impact ecologically and small ruminants really have the least impact as far as nitrogenous wastes of any of the farm animals. Pigs of course are are highly u make a a large impact. uh a um poultry um uh uh bovine uh horses would come next, but the small ruminants make a really a small impact uh you know in if you're um you know listing farm animals as their impact on the environment. So I think that's important to point out because there's a big difference between cows on a property and goats on a property. They're That's a big difference and we can provide some scientific data to to substantiate all that.

>> Yeah, that certainly would help the rest of us.

>> Mr. Chairman, if there are no further questions for Mr. OSA, I'd like to pass it over to Mr. Attorney Henchi and ask him to address some of the concern that were raised about the impacts on Mil Pond and waterways. By all means, don't go anywhere. But sure.

>> Thank you.

>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, let me uh uh for the record, William Henchi, I'm an attorney up in Orleans. Um having served as the chair of a conservation commission for I don't know 12 or 13 years, I want to express my sympathy with you trying to read an 8 and a half by 11 plan, um which is really a reduction of a largesiz plan. But for to elucidate that. So I I I um I was engaged by Oliver and Natasha Brmps to represent them when the neighbors who um I'll circulate for you later some of the pro some of the uh material that was sent around the neighborhood when they all appealed the approval of this plan uh by the Yarmouth Conservation Commission and that went to Mass D. And uh as we took a look at the uh application uh for the appeal um many of the same concerns that have been articulated to you tonight and I'm sure you'll hear more of um were expressed to mass D and uh having in mind that the mass D uh appeal process can be extraordinarily lengthy and I can tell you the last adjudicatory decision that I tried was tried in December of 19. We got a decision in the summer of 2024. So it's a 5year appeal period. So we work very carefully to modify the plans which are the ones that you're trying to decipher on that 8 and a half by 11 to absolutely ensure that there would be zero and I mean zero alteration of any of the wetlands um either on the site or adjacent to the site and that specifically includes Mil Pond and the salt marsh and any of the abuing properties. So, what we did was Dan went back and made a slight redesign of the plans. As I think John has mentioned to you, these pastures were approved back in 1988. And it's too bad you don't have the packet that was supplied um in front of you tonight because we submitted in there the 1988 plan that was approved by the board for the grazing and use of all of these pastures by animals. And we've also included for you um photographs of the former Belzikian farm going back to 2000 or 1988. Um we've given you uh a number of the renewals of those applications all the way from 1998 through 2009. Um we gave you the minutes of the 1990 hearing where Jerry Garnick, as Dan has pointed out, is an oldtime lawyer. Gary Jerry been here forever when I started years ago. um stated to the board in August of 1990 that how Snow Pond had been closed for shellfishing for 20 years because all of these same concerns have repeatedly been raised uh and and brought to the board's attention. So what Dan did on the plan by way of explanation for and when you see the blow up you can see it. Um, what Dan did was to design a a burm completely a new burm completely around all of the pastures so that any runoff that hits any rain water that hits those pastures and starts to run off across the surface which may or may not include some um some animal waste would be contained within that burm would not go anywhere off site and emphatically would not go down to Howlets Mill Pond or offsite Because DP what we were asking D to do was not to approve the plan that was uh submitted to the conservation commission but to determine that there would be no alteration of any of these resource areas so that we could go forward without engaging in that arduous appellet process. And you can only do that under the mass D regulations by proving that you will have no impact on any wetlands and you will not alter any wetlands. And alteration means including includes any changes to the quality of any receiving water. So any fresh water can't go into the salt pond coming off of this site. Any animal waste can't go into the salt pond coming off of this site. If there was any of that even remotely possible. D could not approve the request that we had made. I I have for the board, Mr. Chairman. I'll pass them up to you. Should I give them to your administrative? But you tell me, Mr. Chair, how do you want me to Why >> don't you take them here? I've got I've got copies for each of you.

>> And you'll see that in May of this year, Mass D after the conservation commission had already heard all of these concerns and approved the project granted us our negative determination of applicability. And in the letter that's attached there from Mass D, which constitutes their decision, I've underlined the relevant portion for you. Mass Determined specifically that the operation of this farm would not alter any wetland resource area. So that with all respect to the commentators who are expressing a concern and expressing a concern is a very different horse of a different color no pun intended from from saying that you know something will happen. Um, Mass Determined after an exhaustive review that what was proposed here would not result in any alteration to how mill pond to the riverfront to the freshwater wetlands to the salt marshes to anything offsite. So that respectfully with regard to all of the butter comments that closes the door on any claim that this thing will result in an alteration of water quality, a degradation of water quality and so forth. And it is notable that the abutters and there were a whole bunch of them who took their appeal to D appeal that determination. So that's a final determination by mass D um that um this thing will not result in any alteration of the water quality. um to um uh Mr. or Dr. Benzas, I hope I'm pronouncing your name correctly, sir.

>> Benia.

>> Benia, I slaughtered it. I apologize. Sorry.

>> Um to to your observations, um we submitted to Mass D, and I'm happy to resubmit to you an awful lot of information about um quantities of manure. And our research ended up exactly where the gentleman um indicated that these kinds of animals generate orders of magnitude less um of animal waste than the you know larger ruminants or horses and so forth because the abuters had raised exactly that same issue with mass D and had suggested that there were going to be all these issues with animal waste and so forth and that matter was also reviewed by mass D and and rejected. So I I guess in in summary, I don't want to take all night with you folks, but in in summary, um as to the uh the doctor's claim, the gastronurologist's claim earlier that um this these waters have been closed as a result of the of the operation of the farm previously and would be affected here. Uh, the first thing I would say is your own records reveal that in 1990 this board was told by a local attorney that this pond had been closed to shell fishing for 20 years prior to there ever being a farm here. Um, it is closed today as Dan observed. Um, and there is no farm there today. But most importantly, mass D is carefully considered. We had a very high burden to meet to show there will be no alteration whatsoever. and mass D has agreed with that and nobody has appealed that determination. So I respectfully suggest that um although it's certainly fair for people to express and articulate concerns, we've addressed those appropriately before the Armouth Conservation Commission and Mass D and we've demonstrated that there will be no no alteration whatsoever. And I would urge you when you get a chance to look at a PDF of the of the plan to take a look at the details that Dan has provided on that swale. There will be a new swale encircling these entire pastures in order to ensure that that absolutely will not happen. I'm happy to answer any questions. I know the board's probably got a long night ahead of it. So I'm happy to respond to you if you have any questions. If not, happy to yield to the next person. Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify one thing too, kind of supplement what Attorney Henchi said. Attorney Garnick when he made his comments in 1990 was not appearing as an advocate or as an attorney on behalf of a client uh before before the board of health. He was appearing as an abuter uh who owned property in this neighborhood and he spoke in favor of the farm. So it wasn't an attorney coming here and making comments on behalf of of an applicant. It was in a butter at that time.

>> Um I have a question about Mil Pond. There's there's no water quality monitoring done on that is there too small?

>> Not I don't I don't know why that's the county does the uh regulation the monitoring on those. So

>> but there must be some monitoring done in order to close the shellfish beds.

>> Yeah. I'm not for sure who does that monitoring. I can find out for us.

>> Okay. Nice to be able to see some of the conclusions the state came to. I mean, it would be nice to see a summary that hopefully the board can take a look at.

>> That's it. Right.

>> To get educated. That's all in there.

>> Yes, sir.

>> Right.

>> That's That's the Mass DP.

>> Oh, the whole thing. Great. Perfect. Thank you.

>> Notification of the right of appeal in about

five different languages.

Okay. You mentioned a It sounds like a key uh year, 1988. What's changed with 38 years, 40 years, whatever? Uh, on the property, you mean water changes, shorelines change. What's different 38 years later there?

I mean, I think amazingly Dan Oula from Down Cape Engineering. Amazingly, very, very little. Uh, the same caretaker has been there that entire time. He's maintained the MO line. I was looking at aerials year after year after year. It's like a time capsule. Uh they did redo the barn. Um I'm going to guess about 18 years ago, 15 years ago. Uh they had a specialist from Holland or wherever came over and redid the thatch roof. Uh in fact, anecdotally, he was up there and he says, "Dan," he says, "I do these all over the world." He says, "I think this is the most picturesque place I've ever done a thatched roof because it's just such a beautiful uh beautiful uh and picturesque area." But uh it's like a time capsule.

Now, what Jerry was speaking about specifically is where Emilyn Grry is across the street, that big field over there. Um, they had put a couple of cows over there and Dave Mason, who was a health agent at the time, had uh had mentioned to them. So, they Tom Kelly came in and they got the permit and it's the minutes of August 20th, 1990, where uh Jerry Garnick and his wife uh expressed that they love the cows and they were in support and it had been closed for 20 years. Uh that uh has since been uh we divided it in half. for Emilyn when she bought it from Bill Zakians and then um but she's only built on one of the two lots and uh other than that it's almost identical to how it's always been. But this is a real time capsule. It's uh almost zero change uh since uh Bill Zein was in there for all those years.

If I might um Mr. Chairman just I know you haven't seen these materials. It's really too bad. But um I guess next time we'll submit paper ones too and online. So, there are a series of photographs from back in the 80s and 90s that are included um that show you it's it's really to Dan's point, it's almost exactly what it is now. In fact, the only thing that's really different is going to be the swale that Dan is creating to contain all of the any any of the runoff. And the other thing that's in the plans are the original applications from 1988 showing the plan of the pastures then. And if you take you compare that to what's proposed now, it's it's nearly identical. And that's right. It it it is like a time capsule out there. If you take a look at Google Earth, you you'll see all of that.

What's the plan with the milk? What's going to happen to the milk that's produced in the farm?

I think the kids drink it. I was about to say during the period that there's kids on the mother, they'll drink it and then they dry up. We, you know, from time to time at home, I will make my family cheese, but that's as far as it goes.

Thank you. A lot of material. Anybody any questions, thoughts of

I think maybe uh the board might want to take a trip out there, take a look at it.

Yeah, site visit is definitely indicated here

and then um look at the plan that um you will have presented and look at it. Also, I could uh look into more detail on the um ecological impact of goat and uh donkey manure and give you some objective data for us to consider.

Miniature donkeys.

Pardon?

Miniature donkey.

Miniature donkey.

And again, I think it's every three days we plan on cleaning up the the all the pastures and then before every rainstorm we committed to as well. So I think it'll be a little bit better than most typical goat farms.

I neglected to mention that that's not just a volunteer. That was a specific requirement of the of the conservation commission and we pointed that out to mass DP that not only is everything to be picked from the fields every three days but anytime there's a forecast for I think it was more than a half an inch of rain specifically to be picked before the onset of the precipitation. We can and we can provide you with the conservation commission's approval as well which also by the way was not appealed. The only thing that was appealed was the state permit, not the local conservation commission permit under the town's bylaw. That was not appealed at all. And then I've told you how the state the state appeal came out.

Does anybody know do the setbacks for um this this the uh stable differ on the conservation commission vers uh for the conservation commission versus what the board of health um setbacks are? Are they do you know if they're similar or this

was was there any scientific basis for coming up with these setbacks to to begin with?

That was the revision I think was 2007 the last time. So I don't know where any of this came from. Obviously

I just can't envision why a stable has to be um more than 100 ft from any building or structure used for human habitation. I've never seen that before anywhere. I don't don't know where that came from.

Yeah, I mean maybe somebody has a reason to we have no objection to that because it doesn't happen to affect us, but the uh um we we did note, you know, and Leo did a lot of times there's barns attached to the farmhouse all over this country, you know, so that just seemed a little bit odd.

Yeah. your your regulations kind of go between a um somebody having a few chickens in their backyard versus a commercial farm. And this is a commercial farm. So, frankly, a lot of your regulations don't appropriately apply to this application.

Would you like to set up a a site visit next week? Yeah. Uh just trying to organize it with and um so for sure we need to get educated and we owe it to the public to know what we're doing. Um very helpful giving a description of the property, but getting down there and walking around. I mean, you know, I cycle by there a lot, but not looking for any of this. It's green head season, so be prepared with a some shirt, a long shirt, but

they're everywhere.

So, we can do that. All right, we'll organize. Certainly have a

I mean, if there are people here like to come up now, um hopefully you have more information. Hopefully, from the presentations that have been made, things you uh want to bring to our attention. Uh, my name is Ron Gable and I own the property adjacent to 88 Mil Lane where the owner's plan to move a commercial goat farm. The health department has a regulation prohibiting staples from being

sir. Could you just speak up a little bit?

Pardon?

Just speak up a little bit. Thank you.

Shall I start over?

Yeah. Yes. Thank you.

My name is Ron Gable and I own the property adjacent to 88 Mill Lane or the owner's plan to move a commercial goat farm. The Department of Health has a regulation prohibiting stables from being located within 250 ft of the high water mark of any shellfish source. From 2022 to 2024, commercial shell fishermen harvested 392 bushels of cohogs from Mil Pond, which is less than 250 ft from the owner's farm. The owners claim to have a variance that would permit them to violate the health department's regulations, but the regulations state in quotes, "The stable permit is nontransferable. The new applicant must submit a written request and the board will review each request on a case-by-case basis. The Department of Health should deny the the owner stable license application because it clearly violates health department regulations and their claim to have a variance is flawed. Thank you for coming in. Once again, we're getting opposing views here. Obviously, it makes it just a secret. It makes it pretty complicated

for us.

I'm simply

You're speaking to into the mic. That's

Yes. I'm simply citing the the regulations, your your regulations,

Mr. Chairman, if I don't want to jump in like a Jack in the Box on every comment, I'm not going to do that.

No, that's what we're here for. But I I do want to point out that if there were a significant commercial harvest from the years 2002 to 2004, the Belzikian's farm was in operation continuously from 1988 through 2009. So there was a farm there during those years. And I note that Mr. Gable uh has been a longtime resident of of a butter of this property. I think back to 1990 either 91 or 94. And I'm curious as to whether or not Mr. Gable submitted any complaints or comments during that entire time because he's been living next door to the Bozikians farm for many years and um during the time frame when this commercial harvest took place according to him the farm was in operation. So I just want to point out again Mr. Chairman I mean I I should probably pass out some of these flyers that went around the neighborhood on the last go round. I mean some of these concerns are just um well just remarkable. I'll pass this up and you all can take a look for yourself. But um that's all I have to say there. Thank you, sir.

And if I could just one rebuttal.

Of course.

Um Dan Ojula. Um it's very important. We're not in any way questioning that we need a stable permit. The Billians got the variances and then subsequently got stable permits every single year. The variance runs with the land. We no question we need a stable permit and that's why we're here. But uh the variances are are existing. The barn exists. uh we're making it better with the swale and so forth, but uh because the variance is run with the land like a septic tank, you don't simply have to rip up the septic tank and move it just because you sell the property. Once that variance is granted, it's it's there, the barn is there, the uses are there, the corral are there. Um and uh that's that's what we're utilizing. So that's why we we a need a stable permit, but b do not need a variance because they've already been issued. The health department regulations state that variances are nontransferable and that the applicants must apply for a variance with the existing board. So I don't believe what Mr. Ojelon asserted is true.

I I would disagree. I don't know how you can move a barn. Thank you.

All right. conflicting views. So, um Okay. Good. Good evening. My name is Andrew Maker. I live at 2 Mill Lane. Uh and just two points of clarification. The mill pond is seasonally closed right now. So, it was open, I think, until April, which it has been for the last four or five seasons. It's closed right now seasonally. It'll open back up again in I think October or November uh to commercial shell fishing. So, it's not closed right now as as was stated. And it was also stated that Mill Lane has trash and litter and dog waste up and down the road. I walk up and down the road every single day with my dogs. I pick up after my dogs, but I also pick up trash. Okay, this isn't a city street that has nip bottles everywhere. Okay, this is a a very quaint road. And that leads me to to demonstrate to you guys, and you'll see next week when you come out there, that Mill Lane is barely passable for two vehicles. So, if waste is being transported out once a week, what's going to happen if there's an incident? Is is Clean Harbors on on standby? Do we have booms ready to deploy? There were utility vehicles right in front of 88 mil Lane that were stuck during the blizzard. I know because I pulled them out. So, what's going to happen in instances like that? And I know we can't plan for all of these emergencies, right? But these are things that we need to take into account. Um, one additional thing that I wanted to to note, uh, my son is 13 years old. He really wanted to come tonight. He had soccer practice, so he wasn't able to make it. But, uh, my son and I swim from the bridge over to the warf and back, and we love to do it. It's a great activity for us. We swim with the tide. uh he's petrified of of what could happen to the quality of the water as things change. And he said to me, he said, "Dad, what's the plan to test it?" Because last year, we also swim over uh at Graze and go out bass hole and back. And as you guys know, Graze was closed last year for a short period, but because there's water quality testing done. And he said, "Is there risk of the same thing happening here?" And I said, 'N no, not right now because it's not tested. And I think uh to to Miss Craig's point, one of the things that we really need to look at is what's the plan to be proactive or as proactive as possible in looking at our water quality and testing it. And nowhere in any of the proposals have I seen uh any plan mapped out for that. So um that's all. Thanks for your time.

Could I rebut?

Oh, of course. I mean, I I I take objection to saying that there's trash everywhere. I absolutely did not say that. I too frequently walk that. I ride my little motorcycle and biked up and down that road. But I've got I saved the photograph. Exhibit A is a giant poop on the the south side of that road that I nearly stepped in when I was looking at the culvert. And uh it looked like somebody at least a golden retriever size had not tended after their pet. And it was right in the area that runs down into Helis Mill Pond. So I know firsthand that not everybody is diligent as Mr. maker, but I did not say it's trashy. It's one of the most beautiful areas I've ever seen. And even the guy that was doing the thatch roof said it was one of the most gorgeous areas he'd ever seen in his life. It's a real treasure and we're going to maintain it in in such form.

I have a golden retriever. Wasn't mine. Hi, my name is Jean Young. Can you hear me? Okay,

welcome. Yes,

I'm a neighbor. Um, thank you first of all for uh your work. Welcome to the new neighbors. I just have a couple clarifications from remarks that were made tonight. Um, I've been there since before the Belzikians built their home there. uh they may have applied for 30some animals and had it renewed every year, but they never had those animals. They had two cows and the two cows grazed on land that doesn't even belong to them anymore. They sold that off. It was across the street across um uh Water Street. Um and that was sold off and a new house has been built there. So, when they're talking about animals that were living there, the only animals that lived on the land that they're proposing to put 40 um goats on and two donkeys um had chickens and um a donkey. That's all that that was on that quote part of the land. Secondly, the Belzikians did not keep those animals there for the entire time that they owned the property. Uh Mr. Belzikian uh became ill.

They got rid of all of the animals. And for a long time, there were no animals there. And after the Belzikian sold that property, the people who bought it never had a good dog on the property. So to say, you know, that they're moving into a quote farm is just not accurate. It's it's prejudicing your view. And I just wanted to clarify that. Um I think I had some other remarks, but uh this whole thing makes me so upset. I can't stand it. Um, I don't have an argument with the people who are purchasing this property. I don't. I'm sure that they're lovely people, but often times they like to refer to um the right to farm. The right to farm. Well, the right to farm is not, and I believe you brought that up the last time, if you have five acres of land, you're allowed to farm two. Actually, I think you said five last time, but if you'd like to reduce that to two, that's fine with me. But it's not unconditional. You cannot jeopardize the neighborhood. You cannot jeopardize the land. You cannot jeopardize surrounding waterways. So, I mean, I like some of the remarks that you people make, but they're kind of gray. So, you know, and as far as Jerry Garnick was concerned, Jerry is not even close in to that piece of property. He's way down over on Thatcher shore. So, did he like driving by? Yeah, everybody likes driving by there. Did he like driving by when the cows escaped and pranced through my backyard? No. No. Having animals in that neighborhood is just not it's not conducive to raising animals. Uh I know you guys are concerned that they're going to put in a giant, you know, conglomeration of houses and apartments and whatever in there. They were able to find a um a gentleman to purchase the property from the Bills and I can't remember his name who used it as a second home for years and years and years. There are a lot of wealthy people out there who would be only too happy to have that quote gentleman farm without having an animal on it. And I guess I mean I've been there since the Fifers were there. They didn't have animals on it. and that's going back more than 50 years. Anyway, um I know that you will give due consideration to this. Um I would hate to think that, you know, these people purchased a piece of property thinking that it was a farm. It is not a farm. It has never been a farm. Chuck and Dorene raised a couple of cows because he was really concerned about his health and he wanted to have clean food. That's why there were animals on that farm. The Fivers never had any before them and the people who purchased from the Billings never had animals on it on a piece of property. Anyway, thank you guys. I know this is a tough job for you. Thanks for listening.

Thanks for coming in.

Mr. Chairman, I I hate to do it again. Again, Bill Henchie for the record. If you look at the photographs that we've submitted, I mean, right away I'm looking at right across from the main house. This is a picture of half a dozen cows right in front of the main house. There were certainly more than two cows across the street. We've got another picture here with looks like half a dozen three half a dozen horses. You know, it's one thing to just say these things from memory. Memories, as we all know, can be um you know, imprecise. We've got photographs that we've submitted to the board showing the prior use. We have a direct quote from Greg Belzikian as to their use of the farm. This is clearly benif and as far as the the the the commenter was referring to the zoning law and it is simply a fact in in Massachusetts that pursuant to chapter 48 section 3. If you have more than five acres of land, you have an absolute right to engage in agriculture, including including farming, including animal husbandry, including forestry, cranberries, any any manner of raising um agricultural products, horicultural products, trees, um uh landscaping materials. You know, I I've run into this issue all over the Cape. I I I permitted a an aquaponics farm over in West Barnstable where the neighbors were very surprised to hear that notwithstanding the zoning that the owner had a right to engage in aquaponics and farming over there in West Barnable. They ended up loving it, but I sat in a hearing like this over in the Barnstable town hall with, you know, 50 very upset neighbors over in a bucolic neighborhood in West Barnable. Um Massachusetts is a right to farm state. This is a right to farm town and regardless of whether certain people think it's appropriate or not, these folks have an absolute right under the zoning bylaws to come in here and farm as long as they conform with conservation laws and the board of health regulations.

And that is the caveat as long as they

Just one second. Everybody will get a chance. Just stay there. Okay.

We've demonstrated that we've conformed to the conservation laws. We know that we conformed to zoning. We're here making application to this board as required by law for the required subtable permit. My clients are going through the process exactly as it is designed.

You you you mentioned five acres is a key number. What about if it's not all usable? If it's some of it periodically during the year or it's permanently underwater.

Well, underwater might be a different story, but that's what we've got. That's not what we've got here. We got well over 5 acres of land. And the and the statute I can direct you to it is chapter 48 section 3 deals with any parcel of over 5 acres in size, not 5 acres of usable upland and the things that we've overlay in the zoning bylaws. This is a matter of state law.

So you're saying if there's five inches of water over four acres out of five, that's still applies.

You cranberry farming or what are you doing?

Well, to use it for animals. That's what probably is very relevant tonight.

It's it's the answer to your question is the statute speaks of agriculture. I don't think we'd be coming in here looking for permission to do animal husbandry on land that was underwater and and we're not doing that. But the direct answer to your question is if you have five acres of land, if you have a parcel of land five acres or more in size, you are entitled to engage in agriculture on that land.

Okay? and you know blueberries, cranberries, there are wetland species that grow and result in salailable products.

Sure,

but that's not what we're doing. We and I I don't want to get into the hypothetical thing um with the chair tonight, but answer to your question is parcel of land greater than 5 acres in size under Massachusetts zoning law has an absolute right to engage in agriculture irrespective of the zoning district. The way the statute works is that land is exempt from zoning. That's the way that one works. subject to all of the other

sure I mean the bottom line here is really for us to protect the health of the animals and people living in the area obviously um just you know certainly water quality is key. So that's what we're trying to negotiate here.

We're engaging in any alteration to that salt pond or any of those water bodies, we'd have a problem. But we're not and we've demonstrated that we're not.

And Leo would know, but I think the state changed it to two acres. It's a little bit of a different statutory uh regime, but um come you can even have a twoacre farm now in Massachusetts, but we're we do we're not going to try and exercise that. We've got well over six acres of upland and 16 whatever acres overall. So there's no no not even close to that threshold.

Thank you. You had your someone else had their hand up, but you've been waiting patiently.

That's okay. I I just wanted to address the attorney again. The end of that right to farm is very clear. The right to farm just protects an existing farmer from neighbors who move into the area complaining that it's a farm. It smells. It's a farm. There are flies. It's a farm. They don't like it. It protects the farmer who has been there. Who has been there? not somebody who's moving into the area and wants to establish a farm. There's no farm there now. They're moving in there. They want to establish a farm. They're not protected as far as the complaints from the neighbors go unless they've been there in existence. So, I hear what he's saying. You're right. You can have a farm if you have five acres of land. You can, but you can't have it if you're jeopardizing any of the surrounding area. If you're disturbing the neighborhood, if I moved into the neighborhood after these lovely people came to the neighborhood and started to complain saying I didn't want them there, then they would have every right to say to me, you can't complain. We have a right to farm. Well, they don't have that right yet because they don't have a farm there and they did not buy an existing farm. I can argue all night with the attorneys and I know they're going to win, but I hope that you guys have an open mind. Look at the area, look at the proposal, and decide for yourself. Oh, and by the way, the other thing is when they went before the conservation, they applied for about half the number of goats that they're now applying for from you guys and one donkey as opposed to now they're applying for two donkeys.

So, if we go to

We have not changed the number of our

excuse me, excuse me. We can't have discussion out there. You're certainly welcome to come to the mic, but once again, this is recorded. People are watching right now at home. So,

well, I promise we can both get into one second. So, everyone, we want to hear from you, but you need to come to the mic. That's all I ask.

It was not 40. 40 goats, honestly. So, uh,

ma'am, they're applying for 30, not 40.

Oh, 30. Okay. So, it wasn't 30 last time either. And I remember at the end of the last meeting somebody saying at the conservation, I don't understand why you're arguing we're improving the land. And one of the members of the audience said it's the 16 goats that we oppose. Anyh who uh you guys good luck. You got your hands full with this one. Thank you for listening.

Okay. Thank you.

Hi. For the record, my name is Leo Kakunis. I live in the town of Howitch and uh I guess I've been labeled as a agricultural advocate here across Cape Cod. have been involved in agriculture and agricultural issues on the Cape through my association with Massachusetts Farm Bureau. I was a state director for over 25 years. Um, I just want to clarify a couple of things for the board from a nonpartisan person. I am in favor of the project. There's no doubt about it, but I do want to explain the law a little bit. People have been throwing the term around right to farm and they say Yamoth is a right to farm town. Howitch is a right to farm town. I wrote those um articles that were approved at those towns specifically. So I know exactly what they say and I know what they imply. It is not a law. It is not a right given to anyone who moves into town or who expects to bring build a farm. All it does is draw the attention to the public that there are state laws in effect that supersede local bylaws, especially when it's refers to agriculture. The attorney mentioned probably the most important and the one that I've argued for over 40 years, different court cases across the state. 4A section 3 uh 3A I believe actually too. Now let me clarify the language there because it was brought up well five acres. What happens if two of it's wet? The statute does not define the land. The statute says five acres or more. Now the other important thing to realize the reason why on a personal note I left Farm Bureau is because under Governor Deval Patrick that law was amended to 2 acres or more. Now, under this paragraph and line of two acres or more, they added language stating that if you have two acres or more, and you can show production of $1,000 or more annually per acre, so that'd be $2,000 a year, then you can qualify to fall under the exemptions under 4DA section 3. So, that requirement though is not attached to 5 acres or more. If you have 5 acres or more, you do not have to show income production from an agricultural thing. You can just own five acres and call yourself a farm. The other language that you need to listen to very carefully, it's very clear. It says a town shall not unreasonably regulate through bylaws. Now, what does that mean? I could be up here for hours and believe me I have case law this deep of different things where judges make the determination on whether a town is unreasonably regulating. So that's where you guys are at when it comes to what state law stands and anybody that says well this is a right to farm law the town gives us this right. No, all the town did is recognize there are state laws and we only mentioned one. 1281A is another one too. Uh there there are probably six that are very pertinent to this case but those are the two most important. So your ability here this evening is to re you know look at the documents shown in front of you and once again I I want to uh uh back uh Dr. Phoenicia's statement on manurea. Uh the young lady that called in when the first meeting first opened said she was a um feces expert or fecal scientist. I'm not sure if you can get a degree in that or not, but if anybody knows anything about manurea, I'm a manure scientist. I've been handling and dealing manure and for 60 years. And he is 100% right. There's a huge difference between manurs uh governed by different animals. Cows, chickens are absolutely the worst. Six chickens will impact an area of land way differently than in one hospital or or a number of goats. So, I'll be happy to meet with the board afterwards and I hope to be at the uh site view if you're going to go out and view the seat site because I think we should discuss that more too. The key though here in this application, you have a pretty easy decision in my eyes. The manure is going to be picked up. It's going to be picked up on a scheduled basis. Goat manure is very handily easily handled. It's not like chicken manure. It doesn't have to be mixed into shaving. So, it can be picked up. It it's not uh urine and and feces fecal matter mixed together. It's very separate. Um, and it can be handled. An enclosed trailer is when they came to me and asked me what I thought the best manure management plan to do. The first day I spoke with the applicants was get it off the property as fast as you can. You can compost it. You can have a stockpile according to Massachusetts general law. But let's face it, where you're at, the best and most logical method to handle it is to remove it immediately. We talked about a small dump trailer that has a cover on it. It's going to be closed from the rain. The manure will be picked up, stored in that. We estimated, and the applicant knows how much manure she picks up now because she's not new at this, and figured once a week would be great. gentleman is worried about traffic coming in and out. I would have to say the couple of times that I've been down in that area, I've already seen one ton dump trucks with trailers on the back, people doing landscaping. This situation is going to be a lot smaller. We're not talking about a tracked trailer. We're talking about a small dump trailer that you see a lot of landscapers that have. And for your decision, that's the best way to handle it. It's the best way to handle it. We've looked at uh food storage. Food storage is another key factor to rats. And by the way, I'll go on record tonight and say the Cape has a problem with rats. A big problem with rats. And I've been saying it for probably 30 years and no one's listened to me. Rats are a big problem. And I think this applicant has done a yman's job of showing that they know it's a problem and they're going to do their best to contain it. Those metal containers are non-p permeable to to being eaten through. They're not a plastic barrel. And uh we're going to probably discuss how we're going to handle them once we get an invasive uh rat problem. I'm not a big advocate for using poisons. I'm just not I'm a hawk supporter. I'm a uh I believe in the circle of life, especially when something dies, something else picks it up and eats it. I don't want to kill hawks with with rats that have been poisoned. Um there's there's other methods that we can use and we're going to be looking into those. Anyhow, I I hope you let Thank you for letting me explain the 48 section 3 and the right to farm aspect because that really seemed to be very confusing. Um and I think I've explained it well and as far as this applicant goes, I think their uh their presentation speaks for itself. Thank you.

Thanks for coming in.

Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. I'm Joshua Stain. I live at 128 Water Street, which is right across the street from 88 Mill. Right across Water Street from 88 Mill. Um, I have a few comments I'd like to share. I know this has been going on a while and maybe your patience is wearing a little bit on this particular matter with other things to get to, but I'd love for you to just listen a little bit and understand uh our concerns and where we're coming from. Um, we respectfully ask that the board deny the stable permit and uh animal permits for approximately 30 goats and uh two donkeys at 88 mil. And the central point really is this. This is not a continuation of a limited animal use previously approved for the property. This is a new net new commercial scale operation. The proposal is a goat breeding operation uh that according to the applicant's own application to the conservation commission would support multiple businesses including a dairy crearyy invasive goatcaping, a farm share delivery service and an on-site retail store. It would introduce substantially more animals, substantially more waste, and substantially greater risk than anything previously approved at this site. And you can look at the applicant's own 59page submission to see what was previously approved at the site. The permitting history makes it clear. In 1988, the board approved no more than 10 hoofed animals with um with manure removal every 48 hours. And to correct Mr. Kenny, um the rest of the animals were chickens and turkeys. They were not hooved animals. So, a different regulation applied, if there even was one at that time. In 1990, the board considered 17 animals and required daily manure removal and granted a limited setback variance under very different circumstances with respect to the shell fishing. Uh I'm not sure um what uh Mr. Lewis was referring to earlier, but I didn't see in the applicant's package any variance that's applicable here and runs with the land. In fact, uh as Mr. Dr. Gable pointed out um the 2000 stables regulation specifically says that each applicant must seek a variance separately. Um and it's uh the variance is about use. It's not about a variance to establish a far uh establish a barn. It's what you do with that barn that's being regulated with the permits. Um in 2008 the permit was only for seven animals with daily off-site manure disposal again. And that was sort of the last of it. That was the end. And then the Belellazakians moved out. And now the applicants who have come before you are proposing an initial herd of 32 hoofed animals, anticipating even an additional up to 15 goats, they told the conservation commission through breeding. And they acknowledge that their initial herd would generate more than eight tons of manure annually. And that's before accounting for offspring or bedding waste. The board should evaluate this proposal based on today's regulations and today's conditions not as though a decad's old variance automatically carries forward. This further the stable regulations expressly require a variance request to be considered case by case and this case is materially different. Um there is a big difference as the board pointed out between claiming oh I own 15 acres or I own a 100 acres so I can have one acre that has 200 animals on it versus saying there's a per head requirement as the regulations indicate. The environmental context here is also materially different. When the board discussed the prior variance in 1990, Mil Pond had been closed to shellfishing for approximately 20 years due to bacterial contamination. But since then, the town invested years of effort and substantial public resources to restore the water quality and reopen Milpond to shell fishing in 2012. Uh, notably I'll again point out that the timeline was such that the billicians moved out or stopped having animals in 2009 as the permits indicate. They moved out in 2012 which is when uh the shellfishing was restored after years of work and anony's Kquid in which also abuts Howlet's Mill Pond did not close for another three years. You can draw your own conclusions about that. The EPA continues to identify howitz mill pond from time to time as impaired for fecal caulifform bacteria. So piling on by adding another 32 to 45 animals is not going to help. This board's job, I would suggest, is to protect that res that restored resource, not assume that conditions from 30 years ago still apply. The current proposals also do not demonstrate compliance with the stables regulations themselves. Those, as Dr. Gable pointed out have a 250 ft setback from shell fishing waters, but the applicants place their manure storage, their stables, and portions of their corral much closer to that. As Dr. Gable pointed out, uh, bravely, I should say, um, he noted all of that. And I say bravely because shortly after the Bronx bought the property, they sued him after his wife had them over for tea. Um, so that tells you a little bit about the character that's beneath this panel of folks in front of you and what we can expect as far as neighbors trying to deal with someone who may not be compliant all the time. Also, the applicant's own permit application indicates zero drains in the stables. I understand that the stables regulation requires drains or at least some kind of alternative to them that is not addressed. Even the 1990 variance that was given reduced the setback only to 190 feet and everything I just described is still even closer than that. The manure issue is particularly concerning. The applicants provided at the D and Conservation Commission level no detailed sightspecific manure management plan showing how this volume of manure, bedding waste, nutrients and bacteria will be prevented from reaching the adjacent wetlands in Mill Pond. I note that the nitrogen levels uh of goat feces and urine actually if you look them up are significantly more concentrated than many animals such as horses. Instead, the applicants offer general assurances and an anticipated three-day pickup schedule. But manure, as you know, does not wait for the pickup truck. What happens when heavy rain falls before the p before the pickup? What happens during flooding? What happens when storm water moves downhill toward the connected wetlands and pallets mill pond? Think about all of those questions. The proposed manure structure also is not watertight as required by the stables regulations. It sits on a high ground on a hill above a steep slope leading down toward the wetlands and mill pond in an area that when you look up on FEMA or on the Commonwealth's 2050 map is subject to flooding and high winds. This is exactly why sight specific planning matters. The same concerns apply to the rodents, flies, mosquitoes, and disease risks associated with the concentrated livestock operations near homes and public recreation areas. As you just heard Mr. Kuna say, we will have a rat problem. It's just a question of how we deal with it. So there you have it from a representative who supports the applicants. These are not hypothetical issues. Last July, I'll also add Massachusetts confirmed a West Nile virus a West Nile virus case in a goat, reinforcing that livestock health and vector management are legitimate public health considerations and not just theoretical. Also, this site's hydrarology makes these concerns even more important, and you'll see this on the site visit. Engineering documents have identified runoff pathways toward Mil Pond, including connections through wetlands, catch basins, and culverts. The applicant's own engineer acknowledged that storm water can reach Mil Pond during significant storms when he did a review back in 2012. The town's storm water regulations, which are governed primarily and enforced primarily by the conservation commission, I'll note, prohibit the discharge of pollutants, including animal waste, and associated contaminants into wetlands, drainage systems, and waterways. The board has an obligation to be concerned about the health that is connected with those pollutants and discharges and the applicants have not demonstrated how this operation will comply. Ultimately, this board is not being asked to approve the continuation of a historic use. You're being asked to improve to approve a substantially larger commercial operation under modern today's regulations and today's environmental conditions knowing the history of the last 38 years. Not just assuming as was indicated that it hasn't changed and that it's as beautiful and perfect and everything's exactly the same. We've all learned a lot about public health and environment since then. This question, the question before you is not whether the operation might work if everything goes perfectly. The question is whether the applicants have demonstrated that it can operate without putting the burden of failure onto the neighboring residents, the public recreation areas and the mill pond. They have not demonstrated that and they still haven't offered to monitor water quality which further speaks volumes. For those reasons, we respectfully ask that you uh deny the requested permits. I would also just like to note finally that uh two things. One is that the right to farm is a lot more limited than was presented tonight. and the applicants initially tried to bulldoze the conservation commission by threatening them with the right to farm as well. I urge you to look carefully at the language in that and how it's been applied in the past. It is not applicable here as my neighbor Jean explained to you. Not yet. Anyway, finally, I'd just like to note I'd like to submit a letter and I drafted it, but after uh and have it ready to submit, but after hearing everything tonight, I'm more inclined if the if if the board is going to continue things to hold it and to respond to some of the net new things that were said here tonight. Quite surprisingly, lots of new info shared for the first time by the applicants and I'd like to be able to reply to that as well. However, if something must be submitted in order to be considered, I'd be happy to do that. Please just let me know. Thank you. Anything that's submitted is helpful. It's more practical. So, anyone is welcome to submit so this board can educate itself and make the correct decision of how to proceed.

That's great. My only question is whether I'd need to submit that tonight or whether the board would be open to my provider. Well, if the board decides to act upon this tonight, um, then you have the time you need for sure. We'll find that out

momentarily perhaps. Okay.

Hey, thank you.

Okay,

Mr. Chairman.

You have someone at the mic here.

Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I got to respond to Mr. Stain. I have to respond to Mr. Stain, sir. There were there were at least half a dozen things that you were told that are just flatly untrue, and Mr. Stain knows them to be untrue. He knows better than that. Mr. who stands a member of the bar. He was one of the people who appealed the D decision and he stands here and he makes misrepresentations to this board that I have to respond to. I'll do it briefly. The first one is is is frankly shameful. The statement that my client sued Mr. Gable is just flatout untrue. It is not true. I don't know where Mr. Stain's getting his information. Dockets in Massachusetts are public. There is no lawsuit pending against Mr. Gable from my clients. None. Absolutely false. What happened was, if we're going to talk about being neighborly, shortly after my clients purchased the property, Mr. Gable went on their land and cut down about a half a dozen mature cherry trees over the property line and stacked them on his side of the property for firewood. In response to that, my clients, and I did it, so I know exactly what I'm talking about, sent a demand letter to Mr. Gable and we sent notices not to trespass to keep neighbors off of the property from that happening again. Uh I have been in correspondence with Mr. Gable's attorney, fine young man from uh down in Dennis and uh we have not spoken about this matter since oh I would say October of last year. There's no legal action pending against Mr. Gable. And fortunately he hasn't come back on the property and he hasn't cut any more of my client's trees. So for Mr. to stand here and say to this board that my clients are un neighborly and

That they have brought a lawsuit against Mr. Gable when in fact that is just flatly untrue is, in my view, just outrageous. Just outrageous for a member of the bar to stand before you and make a flat-out misrepresentation of fact in a public setting about such a serious matter. That is terribly, terribly unfortunate.

Now, with respect to all of the other stuff about the water quality and all the rest of it, Mr. Stain knows, because he was the appellant, from for the D that the D has determined, as I told you earlier, that there is absolutely no alteration to any wetland resource area from this proposed project and that there is absolutely no water runoff leading into Palace Mill Pond or any other wetland as a result of this project. And he knows that because he was the appellant. He was represented by a very competent lawyer from up in Wayland, a fellow by the name of Luke Leger, very good wetlands lawyer, and he had competent consultants in that matter. And we demonstrated to DP that their concerns were incorrect. So for this gentleman to stand up here and make misrepresentations like that to you, as a matter of fact, is just terribly, terribly unfortunate. I'm sorry to even hear it.

This is a horse of a different color. I said it again from the concerns that have been expressed before. These are sincerely held but we believe in, in incorrect concerns that are coming from neighbors who may or may not understand the nuances of the farm laws in Massachusetts. What Mr. Stain just did is a whole different thing, and I object to it, and I would like the record to reflect my emphatic correction of those things that Mr. Stain just said. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And if I could just dovetail onto that, Dan Ogula from Down Cape Engineering. I, I really object to him saying that no site-specific, uh, manure management plans were done. Uh, what, what do my plans say on them? I mean, absolutely. There's a, there's a, there's a pad, there's a roof, there's a drain, there's covers, uh, the extensive farm plan detailing all the all the all the, uh, items which we're handling. And it's probably the most important thing. Nobody wants a smell. These are two fine people that are moving up from New York, attorneys who want a beautiful home that's a specimen property. The last thing they want is, is a nuisance, and there will not be a nuisance under their, under their care. Uh, so to say that there's no specific plans when there is a plan, uh, is, is rather unfair, and he's throwing the kitchen sink and trying to confuse and muddy the water. But this has all been, uh, arbitrated through, through the DP. Uh, we've, uh, pulled back the fences, more swales, this thick drainage calculations. Uh, this has been thoroughly vetted through other, other agencies and found to be not, not in effect. And to insinuate that it is, is, is definitely unfortunate.

Um, and, uh, I would leave it at that. But, uh, certainly look at your own regulations. They, they do not say that variances expire. It says each applicant can apply for a variance, but if the variance has already been granted, you don't have to go back for that septic tank. Every owner, uh, to, to do that. It's absolutely would be nonsensical if they didn't run with the land. And, uh, they have been issued and the same caretaker child has been monitoring this through all, you know, Bill Zeian's time, uh, uh, through when Z or whatever his name was was there, and, and now is still responsible for mowing and doing other agricultural type things on this. And I'd keep my foot in that door, uh, if they, somebody wants to start constitutional stuff where, where exactly what is a farm and what's been going on here, because it sure looks like a farm and it's been maintained by the same gentleman for the continuity of that entire time, whether it's, uh, you know, a little bit of, uh, of lawn and, and field care or, uh, or otherwise. But nonetheless, this will be a well-run farm. It's, uh, please visit the site. Please look at your regulations to see the mistruths which have been spoken. And we have site-specific plans, very detailed. These aren't, you know, I think they had eight permits for eight, eight, uh, cows at one time. Maybe they didn't have them all, but I know they had more than three, plus sheep, plus ducks, plus chickens. Uh, this was a perfect spot for a farm. It remains a perfect spot for a farm, especially with the site improvements that we've done and the D is approved. So to say otherwise is, is nonsensical. And I think once the farm is here, people will, it'll just evaporate any concerns because this will be a beautiful, well-run operation that's the picture of Cape Cod. Thank you.

>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, previously, when I stood up and if you're watching this on tape or at home and and you skipped over it, I was at the mic about maybe 15, 20 minutes ago. Um, I said we have a rat problem on Cape Cod and I want to clarify it for the board and the people in this room. I do not, did not mean that in the sense as the applicant speaking for the applicant or this particular site. I meant that as a general statement telling you people, the board of health, that Cape Cod has a rat problem. I mean, I'm sorry. It exists. A lot of backyard chickens on each one of our towns. Small people have even five or six chickens in their backyard. A lot of people feed with bird feeders. Rats are an issue on Cape Cod. The reason why I said it like that is because I wanted you to acknowledge, I wanted to acknowledge to you that the applicant is aware of that and we will have a rodent management plan, something that we're going to use as opposed to pesticides because as I said before, hey, I've been in agriculture all my life, now 70 years. I grew up on a pig farm, okay? I had 70 acres in the town of Howard. I grew it all. Rats are going to be an issue everywhere on Cape Cod and certainly, I think this applicant has shown that they're looking at everything in the future and we'll deal with it when it comes. Simple as that. But my comments, we have a rat problem. In no way did I mean them specifically to this site. They're not even on the site yet. They don't even have animals there. So I meant that meaning we, Cape Cod. Thank you again for letting me clarify that.

>> Well, I'm surprised at some of Attorney Henchie's assertions because he sent me the letter indicating that I was being sued by the the Brmps. in fact sued for $98,000. And the assertion is that a representative of mine, an agent, a landscaper, cut down mature trees, mature cherry trees. Hogwash. Those trees are junk trees. They're junk cherry trees. And I have photographs to indicate that they were dead, if not dying. And I would be happy to supply those photographs to the board if you'd like to see more. Furthermore, Attorney Henshi's letter to me indicating that I was being sued by the prompts included some information from Mr. Roan and the assertion was that those trees were on the Bron's property, but that was never, never proven. The property was never surveyed from my perspective. A stone wall separates the two properties and many, if not most, of those trees were on my side of the stone wall. Now Mr. Ojuan's submission was not based on, uh, a survey. It was based upon his wet finger in the air determination of where he thought >> the line, >> you know, that existed.

>> Don't pure yourself. It's it's >> I think this is getting off the point what we're doing here tonight. >> We can argue all day about trees. They're surveyed. They were on the Bronx property, but you know, >> I don't think that's relevant, right? >> Please. Please supply me with Please supply me with a survey. >> You can't both speak at the same time. We don't want to miss something. >> They are surveyed. They're on the Bronx property. Every one of them. >> Then I would ask you to supply me with the survey. >> Your attorney asked for one and we provided it to my knowledge. >> Let's move on from this specific topic, >> please. >> Well, the the the problem is that the Brmps did sue me. It was asserted that they did not. I have a letter that I would be happy to submit to the board to do that, but right now it's I don't think it's very helpful for the people listening or for the board to be listening to whether those cherry trees on your property or theirs. >> I'm sorry. I'm just responding to an assertion. Okay. Thank you. >> Fair enough. Sure.

>> Might just very briefly address some of the things that were raised. First is Mr. Heni's uh attack. Um, he's done a good job of attacking Dr. Gable, uh, through his letters and also, you know, attacking us for trying to, a group of us for trying to, uh, represent and help, uh, the neighborhood, um, survive this so-called project. Um, I think there might be some hangup, just to clarify. I thought I had said it, but I think it was threatened to sue. There was a very threatening letter sent to him threatening to sue him, not only for the $98,000 but also for double or triple damages, um, claiming it was intentional without even asking him. So, uh, I apologize for maybe missing that word. I meant to say threatened to sue, and I think people may be getting hung up on the technicality about whether they in fact actually sued him in a court versus told him and threatened him that they would.

Second, uh, moving on to more substantive matters that are probably more important here. Um, on the, on the water quality issue, um, this claim that there was absolute D found there was absolutely no alteration or runoff. D addresses alterations to the resource areas. They're not addressing water quality to my understanding. Um, and so I think that's just a gross overreading of what DP said, and I don't think that the board should be swayed by that. Uh, further, um, this point about no site-specific management plan. I mean, you can judge for yourself. You can go look at the conservation commission record, or we can submit it. I mean, it's extremely limited, extremely limited. Um, it's not really a plan, uh, for how somebody is going to in real time manage this. It's a, it's a statement of, you know, we're going to have a container. We're going to put stuff in the container, but there's no sort of explanation or explanation of what happens if, uh, you know, that, that goes, uh, south in some way.

Um, further, this idea that an applicant can apply for a variance. I mean, it's the board of health's regulation. I'll let you interpret what your variance rules, uh, are, and I'll leave it at that. But this understanding that a variance runs with the land, despite what's said in that regulation or what we all sort of know, seems a little, uh, strange to me. Um, also this, it looks like a farm, smells like a farm, must be a farm argument that was just presented. Uh, that's just patently untrue, and the conservation commission rejected that. In fact, there was a discussion by, um, the conservation administrator at the beginning of their hearings saying that, you know, it is clear that this is an application for a new farm because there was no pre-existing farm, uh, at least not in the requisite number of years to be able to claim that this was a continuation of a farm. There's also a case, um, called Idle Wild, that goes into great depth on what constitutes continuing to farm and allows a farm to continue. I recommend it to you. If you go look at it, you'll see that this is not a continued farm. This is a net new project. As I said earlier in my remarks, um, uh, you know, I think you heard, uh, Mr. Ogula acknowledge that they didn't actually have all the animals on the property that they applied for. You can draw conclusions that you will, given the coliform type damage that was done to Mil Pond. Anyway, um, and I think, uh, you know, Mr. Kakunis' comments speak for themselves. He said, "We will have a rodent management plan." I mean, they're in front of the board of health. There are concerns about rodents. Saying that we will in the future at some point have one is not adequate. I think a wholesome plan is in order. Uh, and the board ought to review that and make sure that it is, in fact, fully adequate. Thank you.

>> Mr. Chairman. If I might, we're back on the subject now, so I, I'd like to make a couple of quick comments with regard to the, um, the D, um, decision. I, I think terms are important here. What Determined is that the work here, this farm would not alter any wetland resource area. Now, wetland resource areas in this context mean, um, the freshwater wetland, the salt marsh across the street, and the pond. And I want to read to the board the definition of alter so you understand exactly what we're talking about. This is from the wetlands regulations. Alter means to change the condition of any area subject to protection under the wetlands act. Examples of alteration include, but are not limited to, the changing of a pre-existing drainage characteristics, flushing characteristics, salinity distribution, sedimentation patterns, flow, flood patterns, and flood retention areas. And I'm skipping down, and this is the most important one: the changing of water temperature, biochemical oxygen demand, and other physical, biological, or chemical characteristics of the receiving water. Any change to the characteristics of, of that pond which resulted from this project would prohibit DP from issuing the decision they did. Instead, they determined, based upon Dan's plans and based upon the extensive materials that were submitted, that nothing was proposed here would in any way alter that pond. And that means, as a result of the operation of this project, there will be no changing of water temperature, biochemical oxygen demand, or any other physical, biological, or chemical characteristics of the water in that pond. That means no biochemical oxygen demand, no fecal matter because that's a biological change, no salinity changes. That means no freshwater runoff into the pond. Absolutely no change to any of these wetlands as a result of this work. And I think it's important for the board to understand because that's the significance of that D decision. I'll give you the regulations at 310 CMR 10.04 in the definitional sections of the Massachusetts wetland regulations.

And lastly, I know all about the Idol Wild case. That was my case. I represented the abutters there. We were challenging whether or not a person who had filled some 20 acres of, uh, of, uh, cranberry bogs was engaged in normal maintenance and improvement of land that was in agricultural use. Determined that they were not. And that was the case. It took me five years to get a decision out of. So, I'm very familiar with that case and that it really, it's very wide of the mark here. It has nothing to do with what's involved here. There's no claim, I think, from anybody that my clients are doing anything that is not normal maintenance and improvement of land and agricultural use. I think we've acknowledged that we're recommencing the agricultural use and we've acknowledged to DP and to the conservation commission that none of the uses that are proposed out there are grandfathered as land and agricultural use. So, happy to submit the idle wild case if you want to read it. That was my case. I know, I know exactly what that case is about. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your patience. I appreciate it. I do. I, I do. Thank you.

>> Hi, my name is Kathy Herity. I live at 122 Water Street with my husband, Michael. Um, we respectfully object to the applicant's proposed site plan as it shows non-compliance with the location requirements of stable regulation section 202C and 2022F. Section 202C requires that stable cor stables, corrals, paddics be located not less than 50 feet from any adjoining property lot or the line of any street, court, or passageway. Based on the applicant's site plan, the corral extends towards the fence line along Water Street to the right of the barn driveway. From the information provided, it is not evident that the required 50-foot setback from the property line will be maintained. We request that the board require the applicant to demonstrate through a surveyed measurement that the that the corral complies with the mandatory setback requirement of 2022C. Section 2022F requires stable corrals and paddics to be located not less than 100 feet from wetlands. Based on the applicant's site plan, the corrals are located within 100 feet of the adjacent wetlands. This is of particular concern because the wetlands are directly across across Water Street from our property as well as the corner of Water Street and Hillsy, and, um, the Water Street Hillsy is not, is omitted from the site plan. Compliance with the required wetland setbacks is important to protect these environmentally sensitive areas from potential impacts associated with livestock operations, including runoff and waste. We respectfully request that the board verify through accurate measurements that the proposal complies with the 100-foot setback required by section 202F. Given these discrepancies, we ask that the board require the applicant to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating full compliance with both 2022C and 2022F before before proceeding with this application. Thank you.

>> Thank you. And maybe someone here can answer the question of there seems to be some discrepancies between the application that went to conservation and the one that came to us, which I haven't seen. So maybe someone can clarify that.

>> There is zero, zero discrepancy. It's the exact same application. I pulled the language from that first application. The number of animals has not changed. There's no difference in the application.

>> That was Natasha Brahm speaking. But for >> Natasha Braum speaking, there's no difference.

>> And Dan Oil, if I could just, uh, reiterate again, um, it's nonsensical to say that, um, there were not variances granted on this for exactly what's there now. The beautiful stone walls formed the pastures for years. Everyone remembers it and you can see it. And, um, this is the, it's in your packet. So if you, if you look in on the, um, on, on about page 30 or so out of the 60, you'll see the blue, it's the only blue plan in there has the green lines for all the pastures. Even the, the gated garden areas shown there. And, um, and those variances were all granted and the fencing is all there. And, um, I would say that, um, between conservation, I would clarify one little thing that when we went to the D, we pulled the, pulled away from the wetland just a little bit more with the fencing, but that was the only change. The swale remains, everything's the same, drainage calculations hold up. Uh, everything's identical except we did adjust just a little bit further from the wetland along that east border. That would be the only little change.

>> Mr. Chairman, at attorney John Kenny. In March of '88, uh, the variance you have in your, uh, file, the stable license was granted for 32 animals on the property. We're asking for 32 animals now. The variance in 1988 was to allow, uh, the corral and fence to be less than 50 feet from the roadway. And they are less than 50 feet. We don't have to meet that requirement in today's ordinance because we have a variance and the variance runs with the land. In August of 1990, uh, a variance was applied for and received, uh, relating to the location of the stable. Um, moved that the following variances be granted from the required 250-foot setback from the high water mark of a shellfish area. Variance granted of 190 feet. It doesn't mean it has to be 190 feet away. It was the amount of the variance was 190 feet from the required 50-foot from a property line. Granted variance of 20 to 40 feet on the Mill lane or Water Street site. B granted variance of 25 to 30 feet on the southeasterly side James Booth property. Uh, then there was a variance to allow more than six cattle, uh, with, with no stable located on the south pasture and the fence shall be 100 feet from the Booth home. So all these arguments that the current ordinance setback requirements apply to this property are wrong. We have a variance. The variances run with the land. It's unless there's a, a termination date in the variance. The variance continues to, to run. As Dan has said multiple times, if you get a Title V variance, the new, new property owner doesn't have to come in and reapply for that Title V variance. That's absurd. It runs with the land unless there is a termination date in it. And that's general Massachusetts law. I think it's Huntington versus the zoning board of appeals of South Hadley's is a case that that states variances, variances and conditions run with the land, not with individuals. But we nonetheless, we need a stable permit. That's why we're here. It says that clearly. Those you have to apply for every year and so you'll be hearing from us every year on this.

>> Could I make a comment here? >> Of course. So, in light of the fact there's so much objection to this, my thought is where we still have other issues we have to decide tonight. If we wait till after we make our site visit to resume this whole discussion. Does that make sense? Because, you know, there's so many conflicting, um, views here that I think once we see the site, we can determine for ourselves based on, um, what these variances indicate whether or not, you know, any of these other allegations are correct. Right now, we're just hearing back and forth discussion that that could go on all night. And I'd like to add that we need to see some more documentation of the previous variances that were requested because our packet was was not, it didn't have everything I think we needed to see to help us decide. So, I, I agree with Larry. I'd like to, I'd like to move to, >> Could we do two weeks? >> Yeah, we're really not prep Let the board have a discussion. Okay. At this point, we're certainly not prepared to >> No. Make any decisions. So, why don't we get all our facts in a row first? >> Well, we need to move though to delay the discussion until at least after we've had the site visit and had a chance to review some more of the documentation from the health department. >> Right. Make that into a motion just in time limits. This, it's been a long time we've been waiting for this. So, it suddenly appears in a packet. Not all the information quite yet. So I don't think we need to be influenced by anyone but ourselves. Uh, the timetable here. >> Well, there's some strong feelings here and we want to make the right decision. >> Absolutely. >> Just need to get all our ducks in a row here, so to speak. >> If it's helpful, Mr. Chairman, um, I think we submitted with our application that we were able to find from the board of health. So I think when you the opportunity to take a look at that, we submitted >> we'll get you that electronically. >> Okay. >> Um, and as far as contin 23rd, I'm out away for a week, but if we can do the 20th, it'd be great. And next week is obviously open, but, uh, other than that, I'm only away for a week. I think the board will make a decision on that. Okay. We need to decide dates and people in their calendars. We all have lives. Okay. Other than meeting here every, every other week. Okay. So, I think we need to figure that out and try to coordinate something. Okay. For sure. >> Should we do it with Dan then? >> Yeah. When, when are you going to be away, Dan? >> Till the 23rd. So, you know, if we did the site visit sometime late next week and had the meeting on the 20th, that's fine. If not, just be have the site visit be, you know, prior to the 20th and go to the next meeting. But, uh, you know, the Bronx would love to, you know, start operation. We've got all our other permits in place, but I know you need a little bit of time, but, uh, you know, as soon as we can reasonably do it, we'd appreciate it. It's been more information that's been presented and a lot of discrepancies than >> alleged discrepancies, may I say >> since I have been on the board a long time now. Okay. So it's complicated, a lot of details. Um, it's information that many of us don't have any expertise in. It's complicated. We want to make the right decision. We're responsible for protecting the environment, the people in town, the animals on a property. So, it, it is complicated. Uh, you probably have spent a lot more time on this, many of you, than we have. So, we're starting out with, with this. Just keep that in mind. I mean, we, we take this very seriously. >> We understand completely, Mr. Chairman. I will just say from our point of view, it is profoundly frustrating to be told black is white and to be constantly portrayed as being combative when we're simply trying to correct things that are misstatements. I understand this, you, you guys are getting this cold and you're, you're up there drinking through a fire hose with all of this information coming at you and appreciate that, and I think a site visit is an excellent suggestion, and, and for one, I think the board should take whatever time it needs to make what it feels is a good decision.

>> Why don't you just send Barry the dates that you're not available and we'll figure something out among ourselves that we can find a time. Okay. We don't need to use up this meeting time to establish that. Okay. >> I suppose that that's fair. Um, as long as it doesn't have to be to a time and date certain, um, the continuence, um, whatever, whatever you'd think. I probably could should continue it for two weeks just so we can continue it again if we can't come up with an exact date. But just a suggestion. So, um, once again, once you give the exact dates your availability to Barry and then we'll figure this out with, you know, with Barry and get it a time window that all of us can, uh, join you. Okay. >> So, I'm not going to make that decision. I'm asking the board not to, but the board can vote otherwise. I think Dan was just suggesting instead of an open-ended continuence, I think you have to continue it to a time and date certain and if we can't meet on that date, another continuence. >> So, we need you're saying >> this is just a point of order. >> Just a second. If you have something to say, come to the mic, please. But, um, so you're saying legally we need to just establish a date to recontinue the discussion. I'm, I Is that what you're saying? Because we're certainly going to, to continue the discussion at our next meeting. Mr. Board wanted to make a decision tonight. >> We wouldn't ask you to do that. >> No, just you said to send in when Dan can be there and you, you'll figure something out. >> Yes. >> I just think to continue the hearing for tonight, you have to do it to a time and date certain. So, I would recommend do it for two weeks and if the meeting can't take place, we'll just send a letter requesting an additional continuence. days before discussion. I think you need to go to a time and date certain. >> You're saying for the discussion at the next meeting or you're saying this site visit? Site visit is optional. Obviously, >> you want to do a site visit. You want to continue tonight's hearing? >> Yes, that's all. At our next meeting. >> Yeah. So, you continue to your next meeting. >> Correct. >> No, we're not leaving this alone. Obviously, >> on the 20th at 5 o'clock. So, >> y Thank you. >> Okay. Y >> perfect. And, uh, tomorrow you'll have full-size prints. I guarantee you that. I'll run them right down. >> I suggest Mr. Chairman that the chair take a motion to continue the public hearing to the 20th. >> Yeah, I think we're in the middle of that. Actually, I interrupted you, Mary. I think you're trying to make that motion. Just that we'll continue on that date. Second. >> I move that we will continue the public hearing until the next meeting of the board of health on July 20th. Second. Thank you. >> All in favor, I hope. Just raise your hand, say I. I. >> Okay. >> Thank you. So, let's move on. >> Really appreciate your time. Thank you. Sure. >> Ask one quick question for clarification on the, um, public meeting. >> Question. >> Sure. >> Lisa Grady from 415 Route 6A in Yarmouthport. Real quick question on the clarification for a, um, a public meeting, a site meeting, site visit. Is the public invited to that as well too? Does they have to be noticed given in the paper so that the public is invited to the site meeting as well as it is with other boards? >> No, because they won't do it all together. If, if they all go at the same time, then it'll be a quorum. They, they'll have to do a two separate. >> Okay, I understand that part then. Yeah. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay, thanks for coming in everyone. Anyone on the board need to take a two-minute break? >> Anyone? >> Mary, you okay? >> Good. >> Larry, you're all right. Mary, Larry, keep going. >> Keep going. Let's go. >> Hungry. >> Okay, we're up to number six. Shaw's plastic variance request. You're a bad person. You're a marionette for the the New York people. Shame on you. Hey, >> please. Please, please. >> What did he say? >> I said he's a marionette for the people. >> What? >> He didn't make any sense. >> Oh, was he part of this group? >> Yeah. >> Emotions are running high. Everything okay out there? I'm just concerned about people's safety. I don't know what just took place. So, but >> seem okay. If not, >> now do you have sheep or goats? >> But you have plastic, right? >> Plastic. >> Plastic goats. >> Plastic. That doesn't sound good. >> Okay. Well, we're finally hearing from you then. Okay. Where is that piece of paper? Deep breath. Three in. Hold it for four. And then exhale for five everyone. And we'll move on.

>> Okay. What's Okay, changing themes here. Once again, it's Sean's plastic variance request. Barry, bring us up to date. >> So, as we all know, with the plastic ban went into effect, uh, January 1st, um, we sent out notices to all the, uh, establishments out there. Um, gave an opportunity to give waivers. Um, and as variances, 99% of people did. I went talked to Shaw, went talked to the manager. It was since they're a large corporation, it's out of his hands. So he sent it up, up, up the chain and somewhere up the chain the chain got >> broken, something bent. >> Yeah. It got missed. So I may, you had asked me to follow up with it. So I went back, followed up with it. Uh, I sent them a, I sent the corporation a letter, um, saying you're, you'll be in violation if you don't come. Got the green card backs that they received it. They still didn't realize that they had to be here. So, I went down to Shaw's today, talked to them, and then what was your name again? I apologize. >> Brian McFar. >> Brian, he's the, um, the area regional manager of food and safety. Um, he got the application in. He, I put in front of you right here, and he has all the, the waivers that he's looking for, all the plastics and everything. So this is just going to be, uh, uh, like we have before. So >> When was it submitted? >> This morning. This morning. And it's seven months after >> Right. So just to make the point, the board hasn't seen it. >> Yeah. No, that board has not seen it yet. So >> Okay. >> So did this not come to the corporation's attention at all? At all. >> So my name's Byron McFarish. I'm the director of risk management, food safety, for Shaws, 146 locations within New England. All our licensing is done centrally in Arizona. We did a filing and an assessment for both this community as well as another community on Cape that had very similar regulations. >> Falmouth. Yep. >> Right. We, we filed in Falmouth through the licensing group through the renewal process and we all thought it was being filed here as well. Um, thanks to Barry coming down this morning, I got notified first thing this morning that there was a letter that was sent and based on the way it was served and so on, it went out somewhere maybe in Boise, some corporate environment. We never saw it. Mary notified our store immediately, contacted me, and I just took it all back and filed what I had originally filed for Falmouth and here and went in online, filed all the information. We do not want to be before you like this. This isn't how we want to operate. This was a, I guess a lot of hands in the pot that things didn't necessarily get done. And thanks to Barry notifying us this morning, we had all the work done. This is an example of we're doing all the right things to meet the intent of the standard and the requirement. Paperwork didn't get processed. I will build a better relationship locally with Barry so these things don't happen again in the future, but we truly apologize that we're in front of you today. This isn't what we want to be. We, we want to meet the intent of this just like we have in Falmouth and other communities. Um, as each community creates a another version of this type of legislation, we're actively working on reducing plastics in the environment every single day. Um, so we did file it first thing this morning. We'll continue to work with Barry to ensure that we maintain the intent of it. We will make sure that as we're looking at alternatives, we continue to look at alternatives and packaging out there to meet both food safety requirements as well as the plastic piece. Um, we have a central packaging committee again that's looking at this across the country to make sure that we're looking at state-of-the-art packaging as we go forward. We've made a lot of changes already that you'll see within the store, moving a lot of items to PET. I think there's over 60 items that moved from either polypropylene or to a more friendly PET package until there's something else. Um, we've moved everything to clear packaging. Anything that's black based, we've changed to clear base. We continue to work to meet the intent of the, um, plastic, uh, reduction strategy and truly apologize that we're in front of you today. So you said you've made 60 changes already to products representing what kind of volumes? >> Oh, uh, so a lot of them are on our bakery items for like clamshells. Um, so we went to PET, you know, straight PET, a lot of, um, packaging on ready meals to go. Um, lot of packaging for even packaging for takeout. Um, wings, those types of things have moved to alternative packaging. All our meat packaging went from polystyrene to PET. So, we don't package. Obviously, polystyrene was one of the first pieces to go, >> but we continue to look at every category and adjust those categories when there's new, new, um, I guess options available. >> So, what are you finding most challenging to replace? um, the need for consumers that want PE, um, polypropylene to reheat items >> and finding an alternative for some of those products for convenience for grab-and-go type items. Um, PET, um, PLA, or any of those just don't hold up to heat or cold environments. They break down and then you risk food safety related issues to the packaging. So, we've looked at a variety. Um, film overwrap, you know, there's not really a lot of alternatives. Uh, even simple things like deli bags, you know, there's not a lot of materials to replace that deli bag with, but, um, we continue to look at every category all the time and look at alternatives and in many cases test alternatives to see if they actually meet the food safety requirements of the product and, uh, quality too. Quality of the items that we're putting out for the consumer.

>> So, when we have, um, approved variances, we've usually put a date on them for when we'd like to have the applicant come back and, um, and give us a report on how they've done. >> Okay. And I would like to continue that with a big operation like Shaws as we've done with Stop and Shop >> because certainly you have much more volume than some of our individual restaurants and places that are seasonal and all. So, um, I would like to move that we approve the, um, application for the variances as listed here, um, with the knowledge that there have been 60 product changes already and that the company is continuing to look at what becomes available in the market. Um, and I don't know if you ever talked to your competitor, but it'd be nice. We've found that, you know, individual restaurants and and business owners in town have come up with things that they're willing to share and talk about with other people dealing with the same kinds of issues. But it seems to me if we had two big companies saying look, this is what it's starting to be required and what people are caring about, then maybe there might be some pressure you can put on some of the manufacturers and distributors because we know that there's not a lot of choices out there and that sometimes the choices that there are, they can't even up the numbers to meet the demand of places like this town and Falmouth and other places that have put plastic reduction in. So, I'd just like to recommend that. But I, I do make a motion that we accept the variances and that we ask you to come back in the fall and let us know how how much progression you've been able to make in terms of eliminating some of these products that are on here and maybe giving us an idea of how much use you have of these products in our store here in our town. >> Okay, I second that. >> Any further discussion or any discussion? I Canc October 31st. >> Thank you. >> Um, I don't feel comfortable voting on or granting variances if I haven't even read the application. Okay. Um, I'm comfortable with, uh, the health department. Barry, you going over it at length. I mean, if you just got it as well, um, to make that decision, and if you don't feel comfortable, then it should come back to the board. Hopefully, um, it's all straightforward, well filled out, but as to vote on something I haven't read, uh, I'm not willing to do that. Any other discussion? Okay, we have a motion on on the table here. So, all in favor of the motion, raise your hand, say I. >> I. >> Okay, so three to one, it passes. Okay. So, uh, you're granted the variances, whatever they are on that application. >> Thank you for being >> All right. Do well. >> Thank you. See you in end of October. >> Thank you. And if you come fully compliant beforehand, let reach out. Let me know and I'm pretty sure you won't, but let me know and we'll keep in touch. I, I go over there a lot, so I'll talk to you. We, we are in a partnership with Bunzel who works with Stop and Shop as well and we'll continue to leverage that to see if we can >> work collaboratively on some of these big items. >> That'd be great. >> Thank you. >> Okay, number seven here, level two drought status update. >> Very. >> We have Mr. Jeff Colby, the director of the DPW. Jeff, I want to say thank you for being patient with us and coming in tonight. I highly appreciate it. >> I only have one question. When did you walk into the room? >> How long ago? >> I've been here about two and a half hours. >> Oh my gosh. >> Yeah. Okay, then that's I wish I had known. That's just, it's not right. Um, that's awful. I apologize. I wish I had known. Uh, we, because I don't think this is going to take very long. >> I hope not. >> No, we would have gotten you up right front. Move ahead and move you right up on the agenda. So, I apologize. I didn't know anybody was coming in. No, I didn't. I didn't see >> the choices were to come in or zoom in. And I, as painful as this was, I prefer to be in person. So, >> I'm sorry. I don't know it. So, an update. We'll see if we can move it along for you. Okay. >> Sure. I, I don't have too much of an update, uh, in that, uh, Massachusetts has declared that our region is in a level two drought. Uh, they do review that monthly and the most recent review was June the 9th. So we're, we're due in the next couple of days for another, uh, review based upon our close following of these, uh, declarations. I don't expect that it will be reduced, especially in the time of year that we're in. Um, in fact, there's a, a chance it could actually be increased to level three. There is another region within Massachusetts which is the northeast region that's already at level three. So these tend to kind of, uh, come in, uh, groups, if you will. And so, uh, given that our precipitation is still, uh, at the level that it is, and the, uh, more significant thing for Mass for Cape Cod is our groundwater level is, is pretty low for this time of year. Um, a little bit better than it was last year, but not much. And so that's just kind of a very high-level, um, kind of overview of where we are. Um, Yarmouth doesn't have any control of that. This is something that the Department of Environmental Protection assigns to our area and because we have a drinking water permit that's with, uh, Massachusetts Du, we're required to comply with, uh, as one of the conditions of the permit to provide drinking water, uh, with the, the drought levels that they have and the requirements at each drought level. Uh, it's not that much different than other communities, although each community has their own, uh, water withdrawal permit. So, the conditions might be slightly different, but it's, it's very similar across the Cape. So, uh, the conditions we're experiencing and the, um, uh, the levels and the requirements, uh, to meet those, um, drought conservation measures are very consistent across the towns.

>> Okay. Thank you. Questions? Um, I, I noticed in our packet we got, I, at least I did, got several of these. So I asked our village store to post it and I'm going to ask the library. Is that okay, Jeff? >> Well, absolutely. And I would always direct people to the town website. There's some very good information there. I will say that Lori Rosala, our, our water superintendent, make sure that's up to date. As soon as we hear if there's a change in, uh, the drought levels, we post that with the corresponding information. Um, I, I will say just to, um, cover that we're at level two, which is significant drought. And what that means according to our permit is that all non-essential outdoor water use is banned except for watering of, um, uh, flower gardens with drip irrigation, uh, or handheld and, and watering cans. You can use those types of things, but not automatic irrigation systems. That's what D is concerned about at this level, the drought, because those are, you know, can be, um, put on for too long. The times are very difficult to, to manage how much water you're putting out, that type of thing. So, at this level for us, they have said that, um, the automatic, um, sprinkler systems are, are not allowed. That will change if our drought level changes.

>> Um, level three, which is the next step up, uh, there's absolutely, uh, no outdoor watering, including those, um, with drip irrigations or handheld hoses and watering. So, that means we're very close to that right now. Uh, I've been asked, I mean, just supermarket people have stopped me and neighbors have people want more information, want to know why are people still watering their lawns with automatic systems, um, and asking me only, is I guess they knew I was on the board of health and I explained it's really, that's not something the board of health is enforcing. I mean, if it reached, um, to the point where there's lack of drinking water or personal hygiene, yeah, we would have, I guess, take a stance on that and be more actively involved. Certainly, as you know, we put a lot of effort into the quality of water. Um, so what I tell people is, you know, to certainly contact your department. Um, and, you know, people don't want to tell their neighbors they shouldn't be doing it. I don't blame them. Um, you see some pristine lawns there, uh, and, you know, they get watered every day. You just

See it or the water in the street going down. You see it in the mornings. So, I don't know if these people are just obstinate or whether they're not aware of the regulation. Uh, I think the water bills just went out. I don't know if there I don't think there's anything in it informing people of the current status or where to find out what the current status is by going the website or you know of having a board up at the uh transfer station saying you know to check check the website or about the you know level two drought or I I just so I don't know if people are aware or not and so >> it's a combination of both. >> Okay.

Yeah, most people are aware, but I think some people feel like they I mean, I've seen people putting in new sod. Well, look at the Yarmouthport library. They just put in a whole new sod. Uh they're not going to let that just dry up. I'm not sure what their reasoning was for doing that at this time, but it's they're going to have to water that to keep it alive.

Yeah, I really can't speak to high level hypothetical stuff, but if there is a concern, they can call the water department with the specific address. We do follow up. We've sent out plenty of warning letters and we continue to do so. Uh this topic has come up before the uh select board, which is our water commissioners. They're the ones that do have enforcement authority over this matter and uh they've asked us to uh ramp up the education, but also a more strongly worded warning letter. uh we do have fines within our bylaw. So if we get to that point, we can certainly uh move in that direction, but it is uh a challenge dealing with fines, the administrative piece of it. Uh and so we're really trying to focus on the education, and I think what we're seeing is that most people are complying. There might be some exceptions, and like I said before, happy to have people contact the water division offices uh with those concerns, and we'll follow up. But I would say most people are complying and I do agree most people know whether they are fully complying or not. That's you know a call that they have to individually make. But um I think most people do know that we're in a drought. Uh we have been for a good year and a half now. It's not something that just popped up. I mean sometimes when that happens when we go from normal conditions to level one that can surprise people but I would say most people shouldn't be surprised at this point given the duration of this current drought.

Is there a reason? It seems like I watch the weather. I see this all this rain coming across just seems to diverge when it gets to the Cape. I don't know why. I just It's very aggravating when I see this all this rain coming and then it just seems to go north and south across the Cape and it's so frustrating. >> Well, I will say I'm an engineer, not a meteorologist, so I don't really have an answer to that, but I have had people explain it to me being we have the Cape Cod weather shield over us. I don't know if that's true or not. >> To look up more. >> Yeah. I mean, there must be some kind of a a a I don't know, a geothermic reason why that water just seems to pass us. >> It's just frustrating, you know, when you see it and and you shake your head when we don't get any rain and then we'll get day after day of cloudy weather when other people are getting rain and we're not getting anything. Today for instance, it was some sprinkles, but we really need some soaking rains to make a difference >> with seven, eight inches. We're down from what we should be. >> Is there anything we can anything we can do to help you? >> Um, rain dance. >> No, I don't know. We just need the precipitation. Yeah. >> Would getting us like we do get calls um instead of just forwarding among you. Hey, would you want us to send a letter out your letter out also or would you rather have it come from your department and >> uh any education is good. I mean, that's one of the things that the select board charged us with is to make sure we're doing uh as much as we can. Uh we have done some uh bill stuffers this year. Uh we do bill uh quarterly so I can't say that it's in every single bill that goes out but uh certainly through the different zones we have um Yarmouthport West Yarmouth and South Yarmouth and and they've all received notice uh at least once this year might not be every bill that goes out. We trying to be very conscious of our um you know printing costs and the cost of you know adding things to bills people may or may not read but certainly every year they get notice on one of their quarterly bills. Um like to point people towards the website. I think that's got really good information. We can keep that real time as well. So that's really good source. Um we put we've uh just done at least for um since the beginning of the year uh we have these um >> uh stands the um the the notice of people just driving through. If you're if you're a visitor, you don't get the bills, right? But at least you can now see the U A-frame signs. So the A-frame signs are something that we modeled after another community that's doing something. So, we're always paying attention to what our neighbors are doing and if it's working for them, we could try to apply it here. Uh, but really any education, you're talking to people at town hall. If if you want to uh um you know, send something out, I think that that's all fine. I think that any um any word is good word to to get out about where we currently are because I don't think it's going to improve anytime soon. I really think we're in it for the long term. I hope I'm wrong, but that's what the pattern looks like. You had mentioned though the uh sign board at the landfill at the transfer station rather. >> We can certainly add one to that. >> Yeah. I mean some of those signs we had at the beaches too during CO could certainly say something about you know enjoy the beach but keep in mind that there are water restrictions because we're in a severe drought. >> Right. Yeah. We have a couple of the A-frame signs out but we could certainly expand that.

Once again, speak up if you're going to be coming in. Someone from your department. I feel badly what took place tonight. I just didn't know. Okay. Just speak up. We'll get you up in the agenda. >> Okay. I appreciate that. >> You're, you're usually right on target and you succinct and so. >> Okay. >> Thanks for coming. >> Thank you, Jeff. All right. Thank you. >> Already picked a bad night. >> Yeah. Probably the worst ever actually. >> I think we had another one there. >> Yeah, I think so. >> The tobacco one >> couple months ago. >> Yeah. When others >> not sure what was that about, but we were here till 8 after 8:00. >> It had to be We're still here, so we could capacity. >> Do Do you have the World Cup being taped or not? >> I don't watch. >> No. Okay. All right. So, go. Let's keep moving along here. plastic reduction regulation progress update. >> So, I would say everybody's doing what they're supposed to be doing and the ones that are it's it's the cups are the big ones that we're finding out. Um, everybody's been coming in trying to find stuff. I've been to probably 90% I still have to get I haven't gotten down to the beach um yet. those um establishments just to see what they're doing. Um I will get to to them this week. Last week was a short week. So, but overall um they're they're the people are doing they're trying still getting lots of calls questions asking me can I have this? Can I do this? Can and which is makes me happy that they're that they're trying and it's not blowing us off. So, >> I noticed that um AllTown Guests, you were you reached out May 6th, but there's still nothing from them. And also Peterson's did not send in an incomplete waiver information. >> They they're in compliance now. >> Okay. >> There there might be one or two things that they're not, but there they came in. Um I talked to her the the other day. I'll go back out there. I'll go to Altown Gas. Um I'll reach back out to them. Okay. So, >> thank you. >> Yep.

Mary, just a question. You know, look, just looking at the chart and we we have variance waver ends. Now, not really a question just for you, but um the importance of that whether we we're granting a variance or a waiver to an individual company. >> What wage is that? said these were variances. >> I just see what on topic. >> So I grant the waiver when I'm doing the house if they come here, >> right? >> They're variances, >> right? >> And they go with and most of these are asked for a shorter time than what they the extension that should all the variance will end at the end of the the 1231 when their permit ends. So they'll need to come back again. the variance as well because very often we think of variances it's really >> it doesn't end in other words you give a variance to a septic system it's >> that doesn't end forever so this still has the same date that a waiver would do would have an end point great just want to clarify that good >> anybody anything else on that up okay >> while we're on that variance issue >> yes >> the attorney brought up um a variance issue with the um discussion tonight about the farm. >> Yes. >> So when a variance is issued, even though it was 20 years ago, that variance still exists today. It doesn't have to be renegotiated. >> If it's >> correct, unless if the time limit wasn't put on it when it was issued, >> a variance for a plastic cup is different than a variance for a structure. >> Yeah. They're going to get they're going to get a new plastic cup, a new replacement for that plastic cup, but they're not going to get a new structure that's like that's a septic. So, >> but as far as setbacks and that sort of thing he was discussing, >> they were given a variance say 1990. >> Yep. >> So, unless there was a a time limit on that variance, that variance still exists today. Correct. >> Yep. Stays with the property. >> It's part of the deed. >> Does that become Okay. Just the way I understand that >> I I had some questions though because this copy of the stables um is this after you finished doing something >> that was printed directly from the website. That's what stands today. >> This is the one that everybody else should have had. >> This is the active one. >> It is accessible to the public and that is what they were citing as well. >> But they weren't reciting. >> No, because they wanted to sway you in their direction there. You heard a lot of nonsense tonight, >> right? >> Yeah. I mean, because I kept looking and it wasn't what people >> Not how I remember. We had this one other case with horses. So, that's where I think a lot of us learned a lot about the stables. So, anyway, um yeah, you're right. Okay. So, review and approval of the minutes. This is June 15, 2026. Did anyone have any edits to it? I didn't. I moved it. It wasn't here. >> I was corrected one time. I I said, "Oh, sure. Well, >> someone put you away on that one." >> I was I got a dope slap. >> Yeah. Okay. You You responded well for now. Let's Okay, let's assume they're all accepted since no one has any edits. Okay. So, minutes accepted. Any announcements? Anyone? >> Yes. Um DY school again will be doing their uh free lunch uh service program um at the high school in the back. Kids can go get uh a good lunch Monday through Friday. They they're redoing that again this year. Um this we just had the the bike um fair which was how many people did we have to turn up? There was a >> we had like seven kids come up, >> but it was seven more than >> seven more than zero. Yeah. >> And they all got free helmets to take home. So >> it was good. So we had the police were here. Um the next one right now is ticks. Uh on July 9th um right here in this room 1 to 3, the county be here talking about ticks and what to do and how to prevent them and what to do if you get bit by one. So that'll be nice. >> The new enmologist. I hope it's a sheet. >> Yeah. >> Hope she's as entertaining as the previous one was. >> Oh, they're they're great. They all are. It tells you about who goes into the field. Is there any chance they can also address the issue of mosquitoes at the same time? >> I will ask. I don't >> It's stuff that they're going to know very well. So, >> I can ask a question. I'm going to be there. So, >> okay. >> Yeah. >> You'll raise your hand. >> I'll raise my hand. >> Thank you, Mary. Um cooling centers. Um the senior center was a cooling center and the police station um was a cooling center. We I'd make sure that we had gotten that out. We got that out on the website. Um it came in handy. They needed there's there's people there for it. >> Power outages. >> Yeah, it was it was very hot. >> So we definitely know we have those for our next heat wave when it comes. We we have those available. Um I know we have talked about it for a while. the NFG, the 25th town in the Commonwealth just um another town just went I'm not for sure what town it was. So >> I think it was Northampton. >> Yeah, it was in >> East Hampton. Was that it? >> Not Northampton. >> I don't know. I can't remember. >> I um >> I thought that's >> I also have an article from the Boston Globe um that I copied to bring tonight and somehow it didn't get back into my envelope. So, um I think I'll just go ahead and send it out to you, but it talks it it um quotes Bob Colette and it talks about the whole initiative and some of the things that are being discussed with it statewide. So >> one interesting also came out I think it was one week in I think it was in April where the federal guidelines for nicotine content were pulled and the Philip Mars stock went up like you know 18% or you know or 11% I think obviously you'd be able to put more nicotine into the products and more leading to more addictions >> too have been just approved for smoking. >> Yeah, nicotine levels are are skyrocketing unfortunately. >> Anything else? >> Good. The next meeting is the 20th. >> Yes, >> that was already discussed. So, >> okay, that would lead us to number 11. >> I motion that we adjourn tonight's meeting. >> Second.