A proposal to transform the old Holy Cross Fathers property on Tucker Road into a large housing subdivision has been delayed following a spirited debate at a Planning Board public hearing.

Officials affiliated with the project were before the Planning Board on April 22 to secure approval for the project. The 60-acre property could become home to a 21-lot subdivision called Westview Estates on what is now a large open field.

Two buildings currently on the property — the 12,255 square-foot Holy Cross Fathers mansion, and a smaller, 5,555 square-foot single-family home — would be left as they are now. RRT Properties, the current property owner, would retain ownership of the two buildings.

RRT Properties owns the property now and is managed by the owners of Route 6 Marine on State Road. The project developer is AIS Real Estate Development Corporation.

At the public hearing, unhappy neighborhood residents raised several issues, including their belief that the addition of so many dwellings on small lots would negatively impact their property values — as well as spoiling their views of the countryside.

The subdivision is being proposed under the town’s Open Space Residential Development (OSRD) program, which allows developers to bypass certain zoning requirements, like the town’s minimum lot size, in exchange for preserving open space.

The proposal includes a large area towards the rear of the property which will be designated as open space. It contains mostly wetlands.

Richard Bonneau, a Tucker Road resident, commented that the open space area left by the developers is little more than a “mudhole”, and that most of the animal life is active precisely where the developers want to build houses.

“Mother Nature’s gonna take a beating on this deal,” he said.

Planning Board members reminded the public that property owners have a right to develop their property as long as they abide by all of the town’s regulations. They also noted that they had an obligation to protect the townspeople and were therefore considering the best development plan to do so.

“We have a proposal before us,” said Chair Lorri-Ann Miller. “We have bylaws in this town. This meets the bylaws in this town. If the town does not want this land to be developed, then it should cough up the money and buy it.”

Miller added that various stakeholders — including the Board of Health and the Conservation Commission — had been consulted.

D’Arcy MacMahon, another Tucker Road resident, questioned why the owners and applicants were “hidden behind some corporate names.” Planning Director Christine O’Grady noted it is a common practice.

MacMahon also questioned whether or not the public would have access to the open space.

According to the Planning Board, access depends on how the open space is set up.

“I hope you set it up so that the public benefits from this, not just on paper, but in reality,” replied MacMahon.

Miller said, “Most of the board members on this board have always fought to get open space for the public to use.”

Planning Board Vice Chairman Kevin Melo noted the Planning Board’s job is to decide proposals based on what is better for the town: the open space residential plan, or a traditional development with no open space. The open space plan is the more environmentally responsible development, he noted.

“This would be better than the alternative,” said Clerk Stephen Taylor. But he added that subdivisions end up costing the town $1.39 for every dollar it makes in taxes.

“That is bad math for the town on a pure economic basis, before you even get into the green discussion,” he stated.

Taylor also asked about the possibility of postponing the board’s decision.

“There’s a lot of good reasons not to do this kind of thing,” he said.

But the board is required to act within 135 days or the developers can go ahead and begin construction.

Board member John Sousa stated that his approval would hinge on whether the open space would be made accessible to the general public.

He also proposed that two of the lots adjacent to Tucker Road be moved towards the back of the development away from the road, thereby helping preserve some of the neighborhood’s rural character.

Development engineers will meet with the Planning Director and try to find a solution. The next public hearing for this proposal is scheduled for May 6.