EASTHAMPTON — A proposed 15-unit condominium complex on Loudville Road is drawing some concerns from property abutters, who are worried about density of the development, lack of privacy, effects on water pressure, construction impacts, and nearby wildlife.

The proposed project at 282 Loudville Road calls for the construction of 10 two-bedroom units and four three-bedroom units, in addition to an existing single-family residence on the property, for a total of 15 units.

“We’ve been working with the owners, Stuart and Emilie Nicol, for well over a year,” developer Joseph C. Kelley said at a recent Planning Board meeting. “It was really important to them to find the right developer that would take the care they want with their property and develop it in the right way, where it wouldn’t be intrustive to the neighborhood [and] would fit in with the neighborhood.”

Kelley is requesting a special permit from the board in order to move forward with plans.

The proposed plan also identifies a location for an additional unit in the event that the developer successfully negotiates the purchase of an additional 27,696 square feet of land from an abutter.

Residents’ concerns

In a letter signed by 34 residents abutting or living nearby the proposed development, neighbors listed a number of concerns and recommendations with detailed explanations.

“This proposed development will drastically change what living in our home looks like,” said Jennifer Millard, a Loudville resident who signed the letter, at the Planning Board meeting. “When we purchased our home in the R-35 zoning area, we knew that there was a possibility that one, maybe two homes would be built… but we never imagined that we could have homes and roads within sight of our backyard.”

Millard and other residents urged the consideration of greater privacy through the installation of barriers, fencing and trees.

“It’s a very drastic change, going from having two neighbors to potentially having 15 extra neighbors,” Millard said.

James Zarvis, Planning Board member and acting chairman, encouraged people to “manage expectations,” saying that the density is compliant with zoning requirements.

Another resident, Jackie Didier, said that when it comes to construction of the project, if approved, it will be important that the developer is mindful of property boundaries and regularly communicates with abutters to avoid any misunderstandings.

The southern portion of the property borders the Manhan River, which is protected under the Massachusetts Rivers Protection Act and requires a 200-foot protective buffer between the river’s high-water mark and any development.

“Since there was erosion, the buffer zone is very difficult to determine,” said John Furman, office manager for Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, the consulting and design firm hired for the project. Furman added that a conservative approach was taken to determine the high-water elevation. The end result was a buffer located about 250 feet from the river.

Some abutters still expressed concerns with the development’s proximity to the river.

In a letter submitted to the Planning Board on Nov. 20, Gerrit Stover, a volunteer conservation advisor for Pascommuck Conservation Trust, wrote that the back portion of the parcel was identified by the trust as a “desirable acquisition to add upland habitat and potential public access to this small, isolated conservation area.”

Stover said Pascommuck — which borders the parcel — is still interested in that acquisition if the developer is amenable.

“Once again, we are faced with development proposed directly adjacent to Easthampton’s rivers and streams, in areas on which animals, fish, birds, plans and other species depend for their survival,” Stover wrote, adding that the design addresses “black and white” standards in the city’s zoning and stormwater regulations, but nevertheless “poses a grave threat to the natural resources Easthampton purports to value.”

At the Planning Board meeting, an abutter expressed concern for wildlife living on the land.

“As we continue to condense, the amount of houses that are put in there is reducing the amount of space that the animals have to live in,” said Lori Boucher, a Loudville Road resident. “We have deer, wild turkey, fox, coyotes, owls, woodpeckers… and we look forward to seeing that.”

Boucher proposed that the Massachusetts National Heritage Program of Mass Wildlife do a study of the property to ensure development plans are informed of potential impacts to wildlife.

Zarvis responded, saying, “I think that I can speak on behalf of the entire board when I say that we all care very much about the wildlife in that area. I think, however, that I also need to make clear to everyone involved that that is not a point in our zoning by which we can hold up a permit without being sued.”

In their letter, nearby neighbors also requested a comprehensive tree survey, particularly along abutting property boundaries, to ensure tree removal is minimized, which is required under the zoning ordinance.

As proposed, the development will remove around 3.29 acres of woodland, meaning that approximately 69% of trees will be maintained and protected.

And approximately 81% of the land will remain undeveloped as open space for residents of the condominiums.

“It’s still private property,” said Furman. “Anyone who lives on the property as a resident of the condominium can have access to walk through there, but it’s not for the general public.”

Maddie Fabian can be reached at mfabian@gazettenet.com.