Hampden conservation panel issues negative determination for garage replacement, requires silt controls and inspections

The Hampden Conservation Commission on March 19 issued a negative determination for a Request for Determination of Applicability (RDA) submitted by Paul Gazzi, clearing the way for replacement of an existing garage on substantially the same foundation while imposing a set of site‑protection conditions.

The determination, issued under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (MGL c.131, §40), means the commission concluded the proposed work was within an area subject to jurisdiction but met statutory exemptions for existing structures and therefore did not require a Notice of Intent. Commission Member 1, a member of the Hampden Conservation Commission, read the ruling to the applicant: "You received a negative determination, which is good." The member also summarized the legal basis: "Existing structures prior to 08/07/1996, such as a single family home and or accessory structures are generally exempt under the River Protection Act," referencing MGL c.131, §40 as written into the record.

The commission attached several special conditions to the determination aimed at protecting the adjacent stream and resource areas. Commission Member 1 said a "silt barrier must be installed as far as practicable" from the brook and recommended non‑entrenched, above‑ground controls such as double‑staked hay bales backed by wattles. The commission required the applicant to notify the commission by email at least 48 hours after silt‑barrier installation and before work begins so staff can inspect, and it said commissioners must be able to visit the site as necessary until the area is stabilized. The panel also directed that locally sourced topsoil, if used, be free of debris and invasive plants; that any gravel likewise be free of debris and invasives; that soil and other materials be stored at least 25 feet from the brook unless actively used and be covered if left overnight or longer than 24 hours; and that concrete trucks be cleaned off‑site if a truck pours concrete at the property.

Commission Member 2, who participated in the site inspection, described the proposal as "pretty straightforward" and said the visit confirmed the intent was to "replace the garage on the same footing with a new foundation possibly" while following resource‑area protection guidelines. The commission prepared signed copies of the determination during the meeting and placed the signed document on file dated 03/19/2025.

Other pending land‑use items discussed briefly at the meeting included: an RDA for Eric Ainsworth on Summers Road that remains valid through April 2025 if plantings are installed or started; a Scantec/Valley Water System request for a site inspection related to tree removal; and a Chapin Road inquiry from Ryan Walsh, where commissioners said an NOI would likely be required because mapping showed three brooks across the frontage. Commission members also noted a North Munson Road project proposing cabins and said a Notice of Intent had been requested but not yet filed.

Votes at a glance: the commission approved issuance and signing of the Gazzi negative determination (no vote tally recorded in the transcript), approved amended minutes from Feb. 19 and the special meeting minutes of Feb. 24 (motions made and seconded; outcome recorded as approved), and voted to close the meeting (unanimous "Aye" recorded).

The commission emphasized inspection and erosion controls as conditions of the Gazzi determination and reminded applicants that working within riverfront and resource areas can trigger state and local review if proposals differ from the original footprint or exceed the exemptions cited in MGL c.131, §40.