Hampden conservation panel reviews extended orders for 24 Ridge Road, debates warrant and statute limits; approves cemented split‑rail marker

The Hampden Conservation Commission on March 18 reviewed the orders of conditions and a conservation restriction for Lot 24 (referred to in the meeting as 24 Ridge Road) and debated enforcement options for alleged wetland and vegetation alterations on a separate large private parcel.

Commission staff introduced Mr. Dasco, identified in the meeting as the builder and owner of Lot 24, and confirmed that the orders and the conservation restriction are recorded at the Hampden County Registry of Deeds and that the orders currently are extended through Nov. 6, 2027. Staff said Don Frederick of Sherman & Frederick (Palmer) will serve as the approved wetland specialist for the project and noted construction reporting requirements: the specialist must provide at‑minimum bi‑weekly status reports during active site work, verify erosion‑control barrier placement, and notify the commission 48 hours before work begins.

A substantive portion of the discussion centered on special condition 14, which originally required permanent monuments (three‑inch‑diameter, three‑foot Lally columns etched with a “W” and exposed 18 inches above ground) spaced at a maximum 25‑foot interval to demarcate the permanent limit of work. The applicant proposed using split‑rail fencing set in concrete in lieu of the Lally columns to provide a more visually pleasing permanent marker. After discussion about existing rebar markers and installation details, a commissioner moved to change condition 14 to allow split‑rail fencing set in concrete as the permanent marker; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote.

Separately, staff presented photographs and satellite imagery suggesting a possible expansion of a driveway and vegetation alteration on a roughly 40‑acre property owned by a person referenced in the meeting as Jonathan. Staff reported that the town attorney (identified in the transcript as Rose) advised that the conservation commission cannot enter private property without the owner’s consent or a judicial warrant. Commissioners discussed the difficulty of obtaining evidence without a site visit, weighing the cost of legal action, potential select‑board approval for funding, and statute‑of‑limitations issues for enforcing Wetlands Protection Act violations. Commissioners agreed to research relevant statutes, contact other towns for precedent, pursue updated satellite imagery, and inform the select board about potential legal costs before seeking a warrant. Staff also said they would attempt a cautious outreach to the property owner to request consent for inspection.

The commission scheduled a brief site visit to Lot 24 (the property with recorded orders) for Saturday morning at 10:00 a.m. to inspect installed markers and stake locations. Staff will follow up with the select board as needed if legal action or warrant costs are required.