NORTHAMPTON — A Land Court judge has sent the Planning Board’s approval of a five-story apartment building in Ward 3 back to the panel for further review, following an appeal from residents.

Residents of the neighborhood surrounding Phillips Place appealed the Planning Board’s decision from the spring of 2025, arguing that the board granted variances for the apartment building’s facade and size in a “cavalier” fashion.

The project, proposed by O’Connell Development Group of Holyoke, would create 54 apartment units at the corner of Phillips Place and Hawley Street, across from the former St. John Cantius Church.

“We feel that the zoning regulations were applied in a way where the developer was given certain waivers for things without real explanation,” said Harold Wolfe, one of the nine plaintiffs. “Rules should apply to everyone, or they’re not very effective rules. That’s why we had to resort to taking this to court, because despite our pointing out the variances and the, in my estimation, cavalier way that the board was treating this process, they approved this project.”

Gordon Piper, chief justice of the Land Court, ruled this week that the Planning Board must meet publicly no later than Aug. 31 to review the previously approved variances and decide whether they ease mandatory or suggested zoning regulations. The board must also determine whether the developer’s plans meet mandatory zoning requirements in the neighborhood and explain its decision.

Director of Planning and Sustainability Carolyn Misch, noting that the project was largely supported by the Planning Board, said she did not believe board members would change their view of the development at the meeting.

“I think the judge wanted some clarification of the Planning Board’s decisions and thought process. Some of the requests in the remand are already written into the decision, so I think it’s just making sure that those are maybe elevated more or reinforced in the board’s remand process,” Misch said. “I would imagine that since the Planning Board granted the permit, given all the information that was submitted before the hearing by the applicant, as well as what they heard during the hearing, that [the decision] wouldn’t change.”

At last year’s Planning Board hearing, many expressed concern with the building’s size, potential to produce traffic and parking congestion and whether it matches the aesthetic character of the neighborhood, which mainly consists of homes built in the early 1800s.

Wolfe, in an interview Tuesday, echoed the remarks of other neighborhood residents, who have been vocal in their opposition to the apartment building.

“The biggest [issue], as far as I’m concerned, is the difference in the facades — they’re supposed to be identical on each side. Phillips Place is the longest side of the building, and there’s a parking garage that empties all of the traffic, all of the deliveries, garbage removal, everything will happen on that little street,” he said. “They have not made any attempt to make the two facades similar … [there’s also] a lack of any buffer of real substance between what is a residential and a historical neighborhood.”

Wolfe added that while he, too, does not believe the Planning Board will change its opinion, he hopes and expects that the case will go to trial following the board’s review. He said the board’s remarks will be “helpful” to the plaintiff’s cause.

Misch added that while the appeal of the board’s decision is legal and within the residents’ rights, it does not alter the city’s goals to encourage multifamily housing development.

“We’re just working through [the appeals process] the way that has been defined in state statute,” Misch said. “I don’t think that it changes the goals or intentions of the city in terms of encouraging multifamily and multiuse projects in and around downtown to support the vitality and economic development of downtown and the community at-large.”