Hampden board grants preliminary approval for five‑unit Summer Street subdivision after heated public hearing, with conditions

The Hampden Planning Board on July 8 gave preliminary approval to a proposed five‑unit subdivision at 80/82 Summer Street (PJD Properties), but imposed multiple conditions after a lengthy, sometimes contentious public hearing in which abutters raised legal, safety and environmental objections.

Civil engineer Justine Drake, speaking for the applicant (PJD Properties), described a proposal to add five detached small dwellings to an existing parcel that already contains three residences, creating eight dwelling units on a single parcel served by a new private way. Drake said the units are roughly 24 by 25 feet (about 672 square feet including a small porch), utilities would connect to public water and sewer, underground electric is proposed, and a new fire hydrant would be installed to meet the fire‑department spacing requirements.

Neighbors at the hearing, many of whom live on or adjacent to Summer Street, urged the board to reject or substantially modify the plan. Resident and technical commentator Ron Hajdu delivered a detailed, multi‑point critique of the application, arguing the proposal conflicts with multiple provisions of the town’s subdivision and zoning ordinances — including frontage and setback rules, 200×200‑foot lot configuration, 30‑foot sideline setbacks, private‑road design (radii and tangent lengths), parking adequacy, and potential stormwater and groundwater impacts if utilities and roadwork disturb ledge.

“The ADU label should not be used to soften the scrutiny that an eight‑unit multifamily project will otherwise receive,” said Jonathan Wood, a Summer Street resident, arguing that five detached units on one parcel do not match the ordinance’s accessory‑dwelling intent.

Town staff and a fire official provided technical context: staff confirmed the application and the applicant’s responses to many peer‑review questions were in the record and said the town ordered an engineering peer review (Woodard & Curran) that will verify radii, tangents and slope calculations; the fire department said the turnaround and hydrant proposal appeared workable but warned that on‑road parking and how cars are parked could impede emergency access.

The applicant responded to neighbors’ concerns repeatedly: Drake said the lot’s nonconforming frontage could be addressed by dedicating/deeding the private way so each unit obtains frontage on the new private road, that parking dimensions (10x20 ft) would be confirmed and potentially expanded, that the drainage plan includes ditches, a type F catch basin and a level spreader to minimize downstream impacts, and that DEP reviewed the stream‑setback portion of the footprint and did not raise an objection.

After hearing residents (who cited historic‑district context in the town comprehensive plan, parking and pedestrian safety on a narrow dead‑end street with no shoulders or sidewalks, the risk of blasting for ledge removal, and uncertainty about who would manage a private road), the board moved to preliminarily approve the subdivision subject to conditions. The motion (read into the record) placed nine requirements on final approval, including: a stormwater runoff plan that prevents increased post‑development runoff; a fire hydrant within 500 feet of each building; legal documentation for perpetual maintenance of sanitary sewer; private‑road improvements kept within property lines; using single‑family trip‑generation rates; ensuring the private road entrance sheds water before entering the public road; completion of the post‑construction stormwater management contract; an updated purchase and sale agreement or valid deed; and that all ordinance and state requirements be met before final approval.

A board member moved the preliminary approval with those conditions; the motion passed with the chair and all members voting yes. The vote was recorded as affirmative across the membership; the board did not read a roll‑call tally in the record.

The board directed staff and the applicant to address peer‑review engineering comments (tangents, radii, slope/crown details), revisit parking capacity between houses, provide technical turning‑radius models for emergency vehicles if requested, supply final utility connection plans coordinated with the Hampden Water District and sewer authority, and deliver the updated purchase/deed documentation prior to final submission. The board set the next regular meeting for Aug. 12 and said final review would follow submission of responses and required documentation.

Quotes from the hearing capture the tenor of the meeting: abutter Ron Hajdu said, “For each of these reasons enumerated above, it would seem that the proposed project makes an existing nonconforming lot and its existing nonconforming development even more nonconforming,” while applicant representative Justine Drake said, “We can certainly revisit that” regarding parking and other neighborhood concerns and that the team would work with town staff and peer reviewers to respond.

The board’s preliminary approval allows the applicant to proceed with the technical work and required documentation; final approval will depend on satisfying the board’s listed conditions and peer‑review requirements.