Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board advances 60‑unit Waldo CAP affordable housing project to final review with conditions
Summary
Waldo Community Action Partners presented a preliminary plan for a 60‑unit affordable housing building at 45 Belmont Avenue; the board advanced the proposal to final review after discussing stormwater, cross‑easements for a shared access drive, parking waivers and a sidewalk coordination plan with the city and applicant.
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Waldo Community Action Partners (WCAP) presented a preliminary site plan for a 60‑unit affordable multifamily building at 45 Belmont Avenue on July 9, and the Belfast Planning Board voted to advance the project to final review with conditions. The board asked staff and the applicant to refine cross‑easement language, stormwater outfall details and parking/landscaping plans before final approval.
Donna Kelly, president and CEO of WCAP, described the proposal as consistent with the organization’s mission and a response to a community needs assessment. “This meets our mission,” Kelly said, introducing the project team and noting the parcel is the first phase of a longer‑range plan for the 78‑acre property. Consultant Dave Pelton and engineer Sam LaBelle presented site constraints, a proposed 4.01‑acre lot, and a building located well beyond the 200‑foot contract‑zone buffer from Belmont Avenue.
Sam LaBelle summarized site engineering: the building footprint avoids wetlands, the design relies on an existing shared access drive off Belmont used by Tractor Supply and will tie utilities into existing stubs. The team said the project requires a DEP stormwater permit because the disturbed area exceeds one acre and that they have submitted permit documents and received initial peer review comments. LaBelle said proposed BMPs — a vegetated soil filter for parking runoff and a roof drip‑line filter — would treat the majority of stormwater on site.
The project team described a unit mix that targets affordability: 60 units in a three‑story building with a mixture of one‑, two‑ and three‑bedroom apartments and an estimated nine units meeting ADA accessibility. Development consultant Dave Pelton told the board the pro forma shows total development cost of a little over $19,000,000 and that the primary funding strategy is to pursue MaineHousing low‑income housing tax credits (LIHTC), Federal Home Loan Bank applications and conventional debt.
Board members focused on three recurring issues: parking and transportation, cross‑easement and maintenance responsibilities for the private access drive, and pedestrian connectivity to town. Staff and the applicant identified a roughly 650–700 foot gap in pedestrian sidewalk connectivity between the Tractor Supply/soup kitchen area and the proposed driveway; the board and staff urged a plan for sidewalks or a funding/escrow approach so future residents are not left without safe walking access. Donna Kelly said WCAP will work with staff, the city and neighboring property owners on a pragmatic approach and that WCAP is willing to pursue escrow or contribution options to help the city complete the connection.
Neighbors spoke during the public hearing. Alan Tanoff of Springbrook Hill Condominiums raised concerns about visual impact, construction noise and parking adequacy: “60 units, 63 parking spaces. That just doesn't seem like enough,” he said, urging a reliable sidewalk to nearby services.
The board and staff asked the applicant to return at final review with: finalized cross‑easement and shared‑maintenance language for the access drive (including snow removal), DEP stormwater responses and details on the outfall to the Little River watershed, a clearer landscaping/buffer plan at the wetland edge, supporting parking‑generation data and a concise funding summary for use at final. The board approved a set of draft conditions and moved the application to final review; the motion included language allowing staff to refine non‑substantive details and asked the applicant to provide required documentation prior to final approval.
