Main Street in downtown Waterville is pictured last year. The City Council took steps on Tuesday to eliminate parking requirements for landlords of existing buildings in the area. The change requires further votes. Rich Abrahamson/Morning Sentinel file

WATERVILLE — The City Council on Tuesday voted 5-0 to approve a change in the zoning ordinance that would eliminate a requirement that owners of buildings downtown provide parking for tenants.

The council must take another vote to finalize the ordinance change, which pertains to the Commercial-A zone downtown. The Planning Board on June 25 unanimously recommended the council make the change, agreeing that housing is needed and eliminating the requirement would encourage such development downtown.

Tuesday’s vote followed a lengthy discussion prompted by City Planner Ann Beverage, who said Councilor Rien Finch, D-Ward 6, brought the matter to the council. With very few exceptions, all properties in the Commercial-A zone downtown are located within 1,000 feet of public parking lots, including The Concourse and Head of Falls off Front Street, according to Beverage. Code Enforcement Officer Dan Bradstreet typically waives the parking requirement if a building is within 300 feet of The Concourse or Head of Falls parking lot off Front Street, she said.

With the language change, the ordinance would state buildings within 1,000 feet of The Concourse or Head of Falls would not require parking be provided.

Bradstreet said he is concerned about what will happen if new development occurs in those areas.

“Building on top of existing structures to put apartments in — where are they going to park?” he said.

Council Chairwoman Rebecca Green, D-Ward 4, said she agreed with Bradstreet. It’s good to encourage housing downtown, Green said, but she questioned what will happen if a 30-unit building is developed or a large store opens in The Concourse.

“At some point, we are going to have to add parking in Waterville,” Green said. “It’s just a question of when.”

Councilor Thomas Klepach, D-Ward 3, said the city’s visioning plan calls for various parking solutions downtown.

“I think it’s partially a vote of faith in that vision,” he said. “I don’t know where all the money’s going to come from.”

Councilor Brandon Gilley, D-Ward 1, asked what the concern would be if the council voted Tuesday to change the ordinance.

“My other thought is, there’s not very much housing right now, so why don’t we wait until there is?” he said.

Green said she had no issue with such a change now but the council needs a mechanism to revisit the issue in a year.

Klepach said that, in general, he thinks the change is fine and a good idea. He said he understands why the Planning Board voted as it did, and that it is worth trying.

But Tom McCormick, an independent councilor representing Ward 7, expressed concern. It may feel good to make the change in July when college students are out of town but not so much when everyone is back in town, it’s January, and the city is experiencing a snowstorm, he said.

“In theory, great idea,” McCormick said. “In practice, not a snowball’s chance in July. It’s going to come back to haunt us.”

His comment prompted Green to say she thinks the change would be fine for now.

“But I do think we need to plan for the future,” she said.

Beverage explained the Planning Board’s thought process in recommending the change, saying she spoke with Planning Board Chairman Samantha Burdick earlier Tuesday and Burdick thinks it would help encourage new development. Burdick, she said, thinks the city doesn’t have a parking problem — it has a parking management problem. She told Beverage the change could be made and if it doesn’t work, the ordinance can be revised, according to Beverage.

Beverage said she thought Bradstreet has a point in that the change would be OK for existing buildings, but not new ones. She suggested councilors  could revise the ordinance language to reflect that. Green then proposed an amendment that would change the ordinance language to say there would be no parking requirements for buildings existing downtown as of August 2024.

McCormick acquiesced, albeit reluctantly.

“I’ll play with that experiment — how’s that?” he said. “I’m not happy with it. I think it’s flawed. I think it’s going to come back to haunt us.”

City Manager Bryan Kaenrath noted that redevelopment of upper floors of existing buildings downtown into apartments would fall into the category of buildings not being required to provide parking. Kaenrath had said earlier he thinks it would be a great idea for the city to strongly consider residential downtown parking permits at some point.

Councilors voted 5-0 to approve Green’s proposed amendment, and then voted 5-0 to approve the ordinance, as amended. Finch and Councilor Ken Gagnon, D-Ward 5, were absent from Tuesday’s meeting.