Two buildings on Park Street in Waterville that a local church seeks to raze to make way for more parking are seen from Park Place. The First Church of Waterville’s steeple is in the distance. The buildings 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 had three apartments. All are now vacant. Amy Calder/Morning Sentinel file

WATERVILLE — The First Church of Waterville’s request that the city rezone its Park Street property is now in the hands of the City Council, after the Planning Board voted unanimously Tuesday to deny the proposal.

But board members included an addendum to their 7-0 decision: Their reason for denial was to allow the current contract zone the church property is in to be restructured. Such a change would reflect the needs of an abutting property owner, who bought his home on neighboring Park Place after the church property was rezoned in 2020.

Last year, the church asked the City Council to rezone the parcels at 3, 5 and 7 Park St. from Contract Zoned District/Commercial-A to Residential-D to allow the church to demolish two vacant apartment buildings and expand its parking lot. The city’s zoning ordinance prohibits parking lots in the current zone.

Church officials at the time said the congregation had grown substantially, but since then, the officials have been touting the need to build a ramp — accessible to those with handicaps — at the back of the church, because the church’s front ramp is difficult for some to use. Building a rear ramp would require removal of buildings, they said.

A duplex at 3 Park St. is within 10 feet of the back wall of the church, and a former funeral home at 5 Park St. formerly 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 church’s lawyer, James Monteleone, said Tuesday the church is merely asking that the zone be reverted back to Residential-D, so it has the same rights and requirements as neighboring properties. When it was rezoned in 2020, it was so someone could put a salon and spa business in 5 Park St., but that never happened, he said.

At least one neighbor, Bobby Dombroski, said he bought abutting property in 2021 after the zone was changed. He said the neighborhood has character, and he and his wife did not buy their house with the expectation it would be next to a large parking lot.

“Adding more cars seems antithetical to the comprehensive plan — to making a neighborhood livable,” Dombroski said.

Rafael Scheck, also a neighbor, said the church must have known about the zoning restrictions when it bought the property. Neighbors indicated they were willing to seek compromise, but they were still waiting, he said.

Board Chairwoman Samantha Burdick said that before the zone was changed in 2020 to allow Billy Dangler to build a salon and spa at the building at 5 Park St., neighbors came before the board and discussed the need to maintain the historic nature of the neighborhood, and to 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.

Board members said they support the church’s desire to build a ramp, and want the church and neighbors to get most of what they seek. Litigating the zoning issue would be costly for both sides, they said.

Board member Tom Nale Sr., a practicing lawyer and former district court judge, said that regardless of what the board does, the neighbors and church are going to have to live with something they do not want, and it is better to compromise.

“I want to make sure that everyone is protected,” Nale said.

Board member David Johnson noted the board was basing its actions on rules and policies in the city’s comprehensive plan regarding neighborhoods and demographics.

Board member Cassie Julia said she did not think the city is interested in setting a precedent by simply changing the zone back to what it was. She said she would be upset if she had purchased a property with specific zoning, and an abutting property owner then asked for the zoning to be changed.

“I think that there’s a way to get you most of what you want, and also protect these people’s rights to their property, which was promised when he (Dombroski) bought his property,” Julia said. “I am interested in trying to find some sort of solution that satisfies his very, very simple request, and gets you what you want.”

Burdick agreed, saying, “I do want to make sure that we have some ability to preserve this neighborhood.”

Board member Heath Dunn made a motion to deny the church’s rezoning request, and ask that the contract zone be restructured and a plan be presented for what the church seeks to do.

City Planner Ann Beverage said she thought the City Council could take up the rezoning request at its meeting scheduled for Nov. 6.

Residents of nearby Park Place said at previous meetings that tearing down former apartment buildings and drawing more vehicles 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 places for people to live.

The City Council voted Dec. 5, 2023, to delay voting on the rezoning request until neighbors and church officials could meet to discuss the issue. Neighbors later said the church did not approach them to discuss a compromise.