Good Hope Farm seeks stable and goat licenses; neighbors press Yarmouth board for water-monitoring, setback proof

The Yarmouth Board of Health heard more than three hours of testimony July 6 over an application for a stable permit and goat license at 88 Mill Lane, the proposed Good Hope Farm. The applicants asked for permission to keep 30 Nigerian dwarf goats and two miniature donkeys; neighbors said the scale and proximity to Howlets Mill Pond risk water-quality impacts and public-recreation closures.

Why it matters: Howlets Mill Pond is used for swimming, tubing and seasonal shellfishing; speakers warned that past closures tied to fecal contamination make any new concentrated animal operation potentially consequential for local recreation and shellfishermen. Neighbors asked the board to require detailed, site-specific water monitoring and enforceable manure and setback controls before permitting a commercial-scale operation.

Applicant presentation and permits: Attorney John Kenny and engineer Dan Oer presented the application on behalf of proprietors Natasha and Oliver Brmps and described a manure-management and stormwater plan that includes a roofed concrete manure pad, covered storage, scheduled removal (every three days) and a swale/berm system to intercept runoff and disperse infiltration to the east rather than toward the pond. "We've designed a swale and berm necklace around the pastures to capture runoff and shunt it away from the mill pond," said Dan Oer, the project's civil engineer. The applicants also pointed to a conservation commission approval and a May decision from "Mass D" (the state review) that they said concluded the project would not alter wetland resource areas.

Neighborhood objections and legal questions: Residents and nearby property owners told the board they remain concerned that the proposed corrals, manure storage and feeding areas sit closer than the board's 250-foot setback from a shellfishing source and that the proposal is a larger, commercial-scale operation than prior historic uses. "There is no plan for water monitoring," said resident Paul Fitzgerald, who described regular swimming and shellfishing use of the pond. Ron Gable, an adjacent landowner, asked the board to deny the application on regulatory grounds, citing the 250-foot setback requirement and asserting the applicants had not shown an applicable variance.

Applicants' rebuttal: Attorney William Henchie and others said variances and prior licenses dating to 1988 and 1990 are part of the property's permit history, that the prior approvals and site improvements (fences, barn) persist, and that Mass D reviewed plans and issued a negative determination of applicability. Henchie said Mass D "determined specifically that the operation of this farm would not alter any wetland resource area," and urged the board to review the submitted plans and state decision.

Board action and next steps: Board members requested full-size engineering plans, copies of the Mass D decision and historical variance documents. Given the volume of new technical and historical material and conflicting claims about past use, the board voted to continue the public hearing and hold a site visit; the hearing was continued to the board's July 20 meeting. The applicants were told to provide full-size plans and any additional documentation for the board's review.

What remains unresolved: Neighbors pressed for a clearly specified, enforceable, site-specific manure and water-monitoring program (sampling locations, frequency and triggers) and verifiable setback/survey evidence. The applicants pledged frequent manure removal, sealed feed storage and engineering controls but the board did not accept those as sufficient evidence to decide without a site visit and additional documents. The hearing remains open.

Ending: The board continued the matter to July 20 to review full-size plans, the Mass D decision and variance records, and to conduct a site visit before taking further action.