SOUTH DEERFIELD — A proposed senior housing development has ruffled the feathers of residents who live near Sugarloaf Street.
After Developer Mark Wightman presented a preliminary plan to build 36 condominium duplexes for a total of 72 apartments in a field behind Mountain Road during Monday night’s Planning Board meeting, public comment erupted in fiery opposition based primarily on traffic, conservation and flooding concerns.
According to the plan, each building will be split into two condos, which can be handicapped accessible and could include a single-car garage.
“We’re asking the Planning Board to embrace this,” Wightman said, adding that he’s a local resident himself and cares about the town’s success. “It supports us all from the tax position, and we think it’s a positive.”
The proposed development covers a little over 22 acres on four parcels of land at the base of Mount Sugarloaf, a location concerned residents said could pose water run-off problems, disrupting subterranean water levels and flooding basements of houses already located in the area.
In response to those concerns, Tony Wonsesk from SVE Associates, the project’s engineers, said they’ve taken runoff into account, and have designed drainage systems based on the mountain’s topography.
According to Wightman, units would only be rentable to people over a certain age — which some argued disguises that the units will be too expensive for town seniors to afford.
“The idea of 55 and older being senior housing is a farce,” said Steven Pistrich, a South Deerfield resident, after the meeting. “Fixed income seniors are not going to be buying.”
He said the plot should be protected as conservation land because of its abutment to the mountain.
When asked about the price of the condos earlier during public comment, Wightman said the meeting wasn’t the right time to talk monetary details.
That opinion was backed up by Planning Board Chairman John Waite, who reiterated that the board is only charged with upholding the town’s bylaws as far as logistics are concerned — they can’t just say “no.” He said landowners are within their rights to divide up land for units.
While opposition to the development ran high, there were also a few residents who said they think it’s a good idea, mainly because of the town’s financial state.
“This town needs growth,” said resident Sharyn Paciorek. “We’ve been at a standstill for so long.”
Resident Jeff Upton agreed with Paciorek and said it’s a good deal for the town because the project will bring in revenue.
“There’s a lot of emotion tonight,” he commented after the meeting had ended. “Without any kind of growth, taxes will go up. We need growth. Deerfield has been struggling with its budget for at least 20 years.”
Regardless of opinions, town officials will visit the site, before the developer submits a definitive subdivision plan. After that will come public hearings.