EASTHAMPTON – The debate regarding the Wildflower Condominiums project was reignited at a planning board public hearing on Sept. 14.

The subject of the hearing was the application of a special permit and stormwater management permit for a 10-building, 18-unit residential development at 69 and 73 Loudville Road. The hearing has been continued multiple times since it first opened on July 21, and after nearly two hours, the hearing was again continued to Oct. 6 with questions regarding conservation land and tree clearing still outstanding.

The existing house on the property would be repurposed as one of the residential buildings in the development. Eight additional two-unit buildings and one single-unit dwelling would be built on the property around two cul-de-sacs.

Robert Levesque of R. Levesque Associates, representing the applicant Cynthia Steplar, said each unit would be “a story and a half” with a living area including a first-floor master bedroom, kitchen and living room on the first floor. Each unit would also have a two-car garage.

Levesque said he anticipated the development would be “minimally visible from Loudville” and the units would be of similar size and scale to the existing house.

Addressing abutters, Levesque said there had been conversations with the attorney of an abutter regarding a driveway access point, but beyond that, the property was isolated by natural barriers, including off-site wetlands and mature vegetation.

The property in question has wetlands located its north side near Hannum Brook, but Levesque said the development would not impede on those. There would be tree clearing required. Levesque noted the conservation commission was preparing an order of conditions, “but generally speaking, it’s been approved.”

When asked for more information about the clearing of trees, Levesque said approximately 50 stakes had been placed on the property outlining the area and suggested another site visit. He also said he would provide maps that contain the stake numbers. Chair Jesse Belcher-Timme agreed another site visit with the stakes would be helpful as there was minimal staking when the planning board previously visited the property. A second site visit was scheduled for Sept. 24 to observe the new staking.

Levesque explained while the developer was willing to save what trees they could, much of the area would be clear-cut.

“Within the limit of work, the term clear-cut obviously sounds like a negative term, but I believe it’s accurate. The area within the roadway and the proposed footprints obviously can’t have trees there,” he said. “Really, the area that I think we can focus on would be along the perimeter and see if there’s any mature vegetation that we could try to salvage and save.”

In a letter to the planning board that was read into the record, Bonnie Ledoux of 78 Loudville Road expressed concerns regarding traffic increases, placement of the curb cut for the road, noise, and safety of walkers and pedestrians. She also opined the development would “change dramatically the landscape of this area” while also devaluing homes. In addition to traffic concerns, another resident wrote that she was concerned about setting a precedent in which developers buy single family properties for the purpose of development, the use of outdated traffic data and utility capacities.

Carolyn Smith of 40 Loudville Road called the development “a lot of housing for a relatively small amount of land” and also questioned the affordability of the units.

Levesque said he and the applicant adhered to the Planning Department’s regulations on multi-family housing when determining the number of units and utilized the prescribed ratio of open space vs. development to come to the number of 18 units. He added Easthampton was “a pretty hot market” and the units with their proposed layouts would be “desirable.” He said in other communities, similar units have sold for $350,000 to $400,000 range.

Levesque also noted the project was not being pursued by a “big developer” but rather by the home owner.

He also indicated the traffic data was positive, stating the actual trip generation was a “drop in the bucket,” given the capacity of surrounding roadways. He added the plans far exceed sight distance requirements on Loudville Road.

“There will be some additional cars on the road, but it’s very minimal in terms of traffic functions and level of service of intersections,” he said.

Levesque added the age of the data was not a concern, pointing out that due to COVID-19, traffic counts would likely be lower than normal. He asserted the traffic study also took into account the speeds for which the road was designed for and actual speeds recorded on the roadway.

Chris Cleland, a resident of 34 Carillon Circle, said he was impressed with the proposal  but voiced concerns about the precedent the project set, regardless of how well it was put together and presented.

“My issue is this is completely out of character with this end of town,” he said, naming several other parcels of similar size or situation and wondering what would prevent similar developments from popping up. “It’s like this whole section of town could be radically changed into this higher density type of development.”

He later added, “This issuance of this special permit would make it harder for the planning board to say no to further creating more neighborhoods like my own on what is now open space.”

Chris O’Connor of 21 Ashley Cir. also reiterated safety and noise concerns as well as the risk of changing the community.

Levesque suggested if that was a concern, the city could explore changing the zoning. Belcher-Timme noted zoning decisions ultimately go to the city council and encouraged the public to reach out to the council if they have concerns.

City Planner Jeffrey Bagg said the city doesn’t “operate on precedent.”

“Just because a special permit gets granted doesn’t automatically make it easier for the next one,” he said.

He added a consultant had been hired to perform a town-wide housing assessment, but said the city is in need of more housing “across the board.” He added the city’s Open Space and Recreation plan was in the midst of an update, which would include a community survey.