Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board approves Belfast Water District site plan amendment for 41 White Street
Summary
The Belfast Planning Board approved a site‑plan amendment allowing the Belfast Water District to reconfigure on‑site stormwater with subsurface detention chambers, add gravel overflow parking and extend fencing at its 41 White Street headquarters; the board imposed conditions on erosion control, fencing review and as‑built documentation.
The Belfast Planning Board on Aug. 21 approved a site‑plan amendment allowing the Belfast Water District to reconfigure its stormwater system at its headquarters at 41 White Street to install subsurface detention chambers and create an overflow gravel parking and operations area.
The move, which staff said preserves predevelopment peak flow and meets city stormwater standards, drew questions from neighbors about noise, truck traffic and whether prior neighborhood protections would remain in place.
Planning and Codes Director Bob Fournier told the board the district’s 2022 approval required it to return if stormwater changed; the project was reviewed again and city engineering comments were relied upon for a finding that the proposed reconfiguration provides adequate stormwater management, including modeling for the 50‑year storm. Frank Short, superintendent of the Belfast Water District, said the chambers let the district park trailers and vehicles more efficiently and estimated the work at roughly $35,000, with about a $5,000 difference compared with the option of tying into the city system. “We need the extra space,” Short said.
Neighbors who spoke during the public hearing said they support the district’s mission but worry about increased truck and trailer parking, hours of operation and how the site will look from abutting homes. Jean Bridal of Cary Gardens told the board she had no objection “as long as those things don’t change,” referencing earlier conditions about operations and noise. Michelle Henrian said increased parking and truck activity would make the street less compatible with a mostly residential area.
Staff and the board said the amended plan does not increase off‑site flow, that the site will be required to follow erosion‑control best management practices, and that material storage outside the fenced area will be enclosed. The board added conditions requiring the applicant to submit an as‑built plan when work is complete, to use the approved stormwater configuration, to route any future expansion or increases in impermeable surface back to the planning board (the permit limits changes that increase impermeable area or add more than 100 square feet without board review), and to route fence review through InTown Design for appearance.
The board voted to approve the findings and conditions and then approved the site‑plan and use permit. One member abstained on the final site‑plan vote. The district must carry out the project consistent with the approved plans and with any required state permits and code enforcement checks; staff will monitor compliance and the applicant must file required documentation when work is done.
The board’s approval is limited to the items and conditions recorded in the meeting packet and the planning board’s findings; any changes that expand impervious surfaces, add structures exceeding 100 square feet, change use or materially alter parking will require a return to the planning board.
