
First Church of Waterville would like to demolish buildings on its Park Street property, above, to expand parking and build a ramp. However, city officials are concerned about the impact on neighbors and traffic safety. Amy Calder/Morning Sentinel file
WATERVILLE — After 18 months on the table, the debate about whether to approve zoning changes so First Church of Waterville can tear down buildings and expand its parking lot remains in limbo.
The Planning Board voted 5-2 Tuesday night to postpone until Jan. 28 making a recommendation to the City Council about whether it should approve revisions to conditions of a contract zone for 3, 5, and 7 Park St.
The council voted 5-0 on Dec. 18 to refer the matter back to the Planning Board for review and recommendation back to the council.

Essentially, church officials want to tear down two buildings on the property, expand the 22-space parking lot to 52 spaces and build a handicapped accessible ramp at the rear of the church. They claim that if a building is not demolished, there won’t be space enough to build such a ramp.
But the Planning Board had a lot of questions for the church’s senior minister, Stephen Meidahl, and engineer Jeff Allen of A.E. Hodsdon Consulting Engineers, who represents the church. Board member Heath Dunn said the site plan the Planning Board had requested of the church to detail what the church wanted to do did not explain how much space a handicapped ramp would require, nor did it appear demolition of a building would be necessary to build the ramp.
Board member David Johnson called into question Meidahl’s statement that the church would have to come back to the Planning Board with an architectural drawing of the ramp and the board would have to approve it before constructing it.
“That is incorrect,” Johnson told him.
Board members also debated with Allen at great length about the church’s plan to have three egresses from the parking lot onto Park Street, with some saying it would create a dangerous situation with so much traffic moving in and out.
And board member Tom Nale Sr. expressed surprise that what city officials had argued in previous board and council meetings — that they needed to advocate for the neighbors and fight to prevent the demolition of the buildings — was no longer part of a new proposal.
“I am more confused now than I was when I came in here, and I thought I was pretty well prepared for this,” Nale said.
Johnson made a motion to postpone making a recommendation to the council until the board’s Jan. 28 meeting to allow time to seek advice from City Engineer Andy McPherson about the entrances, egresses and traffic issues around the parking lot. Dunn seconded his motion. The board approved it in a 5-2 vote, with Chair Samantha Burdick and member Cassie Julia voting against it.
Councilors voted unanimously Nov. 20 to reject the church’s request to rezone the land so the church could tear down two vacant buildings, expand the parking lot and build a ramp. Councilors recommended the church work with City Solicitor William A. Lee III to reconstruct the contract zone the property is in to meet the needs of the church and its neighbors. Lee met with church officials at the council’s request to negotiate the revisions to the conditions of the contract zone to address a parking plan and screening.
The church at 1 Park St. initially asked the council to rezone 3, 5 and 7 Park St. from Contract Zoned District Commercial-A to Residential-D. Councilors said previously they want to protect the neighbors’ interests, and suggested a restructured contract zone be developed instead that would address parking, egress and buffers.
The proposed changes include that the only permitted uses of the property are a parking lot, a ramp that is accessible to those with handicaps, professional offices, housing or other uses permitted in the zone; any new construction would have to meet the requirements of the zone; and any amendment to the parking lot site plan would be subject to review and approval by the Planning Board. The board also would have to review and approve the site plan for any new use of the property.
Screening would be required, to include a minimum 6-foot-tall vinyl stockade fence to be maintained along a specific part of the property.
The Planning Board voted unanimously Oct. 23, 2024, against recommending the City Council rezone the property to Residential-D, with members saying they wanted to allow the church property’s contract zone to be restructured. Such a change would reflect the needs of an abutting property owner, Bobby Dombroski, who bought his home on neighboring Park Place after the church property was rezoned in 2020, board members said at the time.
Dombroski spoke Tuesday night and said he wished the city had fought harder to keep the buildings, formerly used for housing, from being demolished. He said he had to accept the decisions made, though they were not what the neighborhood had wanted. As a last request, he asked that at least the city require only one-way access from the parking lot.
Board member Scott Beale said he left the last meeting with the understanding there was concern about tearing down the buildings.
“Now it seems as if it’s a done deal,” he said.
Church officials more than a year ago said the congregation had grown substantially, so more parking was needed. Some time after there was a lot of pushback from city officials and neighbors, church officials started emphasizing the need to build a ramp at the back of the church.
The buildings on the property include a duplex at 3 Park St. that is within 10 feet of the back wall of the church, and a former funeral home at 5 Park St. that once had three apartments. They had all been renovated, but are now vacant because the tenants were asked to leave and the apartments were gutted.
The zone was changed in 2020 to allow a salon and spa to be built at the building at 5 Park St. Neighbors approached the Planning Board and said it was important to maintain the historic nature of the neighborhood and have an adequate buffer between the parking lot and the homes on Park Place.
They never got the promised buffer because the salon was never developed. If the property were to be reverted back to Residential-D, the church would not be required to develop a buffer.
Residents of Park Place said at previous meetings that tearing down former apartment buildings and drawing more traffic to the area would disrupt the historic and residential nature of the neighborhood. They also said it would eliminate housing when the city needs more.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
We invite you to add your comments. We encourage a thoughtful exchange of ideas and information on this website. By joining the conversation, you are agreeing to our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is found on our FAQs. You can modify your screen name here.
Comments are managed by our staff during regular business hours Monday through Friday as well as limited hours on Saturday and Sunday. Comments held for moderation outside of those hours may take longer to approve.
Join the Conversation
Please sign into your CentralMaine.com account to participate in conversations below. If you do not have an account, you can register or subscribe. Questions? Please see our FAQs.