Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Green Burial Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Yarmouth Board of Health opens detailed review of green/home-burial requests, seeks water‑consultant input
Summary
The Board of Health discussed a private applicant's request for a home green burial and agreed to develop a comprehensive local policy covering setbacks, cause-of-death exclusions, markers, and coordination with DEP and the town water department; members asked the water consultant to appear at a future meeting.
The Yarmouth Board of Health spent the bulk of its Nov. 4 meeting discussing a request for a private green (home) burial and the creation of a formal town policy to govern such requests.
Jay, presenting materials to the board, said an applicant had come forward and that the board needed a “thoughtful, comprehensive, and well‑vetted” application and policy. He listed about a dozen items for the board to consider, including minimum lot size, setbacks from dwellings and septic systems, buffer zones near wetlands, whether family versus individual plots are allowed, who bears ongoing maintenance responsibility and what kinds of grave markers should be permitted.
Members repeatedly emphasized coordination with other agencies. Jay and others said the applicant had submitted a plot plan, survey and a hydrogeological/soil evaluation and were awaiting a response from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Eric told the board he had forwarded an email reply from DEP staffers Aaron Raposo and Ian Jarvis for their review; board members asked for a DEP representative or other subject‑matter expert to speak to the board “so that you hear firsthand,” as Jay put it.
The town’s water superintendent and her consultant raised the most immediate operational concern: several speakers noted part of the applicant’s parcel falls within a Zone 2 aquifer protection area. Barry summarized the water‑department view that when any portion of a property is in Zone 2, the whole parcel is treated under that designation for related decisions (for example, septic permitting). One board member quoted the consultant’s guidance and said it “states that viruses and microorganisms can live for many years,” and that a stronger restriction on burials in the Aquifer Protection District could be appropriate.
Board members asked for consultant biographies and clearer technical grounding for the water‑department concerns. Jay said he had received consultant bios that day and would forward them; he also recommended inviting the water consultant to a future meeting so members could ask questions directly. Eric and others said they would review sample checklists and policies from other Massachusetts towns (Eric offered to send the town of Wendell’s checklist as an example).
Members discussed practical policy tools, including the option to issue permits with conditions or variances, a potential application fee, and specific exclusions based on cause of death or certain body treatments. They also noted legal constraints: Jay referenced local authority to adopt rules and reminded members that state DEP and the Department of Public Health (DPH) also have roles in this area.
Several members urged a smaller working group to draft a policy skeleton and then return it to the full board for review. Jay said staff would coordinate with Laurie, the water superintendent, and the consultant and aim to have a focused conversation at the board’s next meeting or at a special session.
The board did not take a final vote on the applicant’s case; members instead agreed to gather additional technical input and to draft a policy framework before making a decision.
The board expects to receive consultant biographies and DEP feedback in advance of the next discussion and asked staff to prepare a draft application checklist addressing the items raised.
