Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Disposition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board backs conveyance and turn‑around change at Challenger Drive to enable larger industrial building
Summary
The Lewiston Planning Board voted to recommend the city convey about 0.49 acres at the end of Challenger Drive and to reconfigure the cul‑de‑sac to a T‑turnaround, a move staff said would enable nearly 9,600–10,000 sq ft of additional building area for 17 Challenger Drive.
The Lewiston Planning Board voted to send a favorable recommendation to the city council for the disposition of roughly 0.49 acres at the terminus of Challenger Drive and to support reconfiguring the existing cul‑de‑sac into a T‑turnaround to provide development area for 17 Challenger Drive. Chair Lucy Bisson opened the discussion and said staff has reviewed the plan and state statute governing road adjustments.
Shelley Norton, the city's deputy director, told the board the parcel sits in the SD‑4 industrial village special district and that converting the circular turnaround to a T‑turnaround would create nearly a half‑acre of surplus land. Norton said the assessor placed fair‑market value on the parcel at $10,000 for the .49 acres and noted that the proposal would require the city engineer’s final design approval and compliance with state road‑adjustment statutes.
Darren Galant asked whether truck turning maneuvers would be affected. Norton said both cul‑de‑sacs and T‑turnarounds meet city road standards and the city engineer will approve final geometry to accommodate trucks. Noah Gendin, speaking as a representative of TR LLC, said the additional land “allows an additional 9600 square feet of building footprint” and described the intended use as a mix of quasi‑industrial and business‑to‑business commercial space, with truck loading on one side and employee parking on the other.
Board members also discussed whether additional adjacent land could be reallocated to neighboring parcels and whether the owner would cover road construction costs. Michael Marquott said staff had not provided terms yet; Norton replied that road construction would be part of the agreement but the financial details remain to be negotiated with the abutter.
The board moved, seconded and voted unanimously to recommend the disposition to the city council and to include a recommendation that the city consider adjustments to the turnaround to maximize developable land. The recommendation is advisory; the council will consider the final terms and any compensation or construction obligations.
Next steps: the matter will proceed to the city council for final action and the city engineer will continue to refine construction and access details.
