LEWISTON, Maine — The Lewiston Planning Board voted Monday night to approve an application from Masjidu Salaam Mosque to expand its existing parking lot at 240 Bartlett Street, clearing the way for additional parking and a higher occupancy limit at the building after a lengthy and often tense public hearing that also featured controversy over differing versions of the site plans.
The application sought approval for an approximately 5,000-square-foot expansion of the existing parking lot on the 0.91-acre property. The project will allow for increased parking capacity and greater building occupancy.
Planning staff told the board the site was previously approved in 2012 for use as a mosque, with occupancy capped at 94 people and a 25-space parking lot. Staff said the occupancy limit was tied to parking constraints, not the size of the building itself.
Under the new plan, the redesigned lot would include improved drainage, a reconfiguration of the existing parking area, and the closure of one of the curb cuts on Bartlett Street. Staff said the submitted design showed a total of 60 parking spaces, an increase of 35, though that number will likely be reduced to 59 because the dumpster must be moved to meet setback requirements.
The project also uses an existing 20-foot access easement granted to 256 Bartlett Street as the primary entrance and exit for the site, while leaving access open for the neighboring property.
Staff told the board that parking requirements for religious facilities are based on one parking space for every four seats when fixed seating is provided. Because the mosque does not use fixed seating, the board had previously adopted a formula of 10 square feet per person for religious assembly occupancy. Using that formula, staff said the requested occupancy of 192 people would require 48 parking spaces. Even with the likely loss of one parking space due to dumpster relocation, the proposal would still exceed that requirement.
The board also heard that occupancy limits have proven difficult for the city to enforce. Staff recommended that, as a condition of approval, the applicant provides the city with materials detailing how occupancy would be regulated to remain within the approved limit.
On traffic, staff said the applicant submitted a preliminary traffic impact estimate prepared by Haley Ward using the ITE trip generation manual. According to that estimate, the site currently generates 64 peak trips, with the expansion expected to add 35 more, for a total of 99 trips. Staff said the increase was below the threshold that would require a traffic impact permit, and that the Maine Department of Transportation reviewed the matter and agreed that no permit was necessary.
But much of the controversy Monday night centered not only on traffic and public safety concerns, but also on claims that members of the public had received a different version of the plans than the ones ultimately presented to the board.
During public comment, Denis Theriault, who identified himself as a longtime property owner on Bartlett Street and a former city councilor and planning board member, said he had uncovered what he described as different versions of plan sheet C101. Theriault argued that one version he obtained did not include certain markings and notations that appeared on the version before the board, raising questions about how multiple versions of the same plan circulated without clear revision history.
That dispute became one of the most contentious moments of the hearing. Theriault pressed staff repeatedly on how the plans changed and why members of the public were able to purchase or review one set of plans while the board later considered another. Planning staff acknowledged that revisions are typically supposed to be noted on drawings and apologized for what they described as an oversight, explaining that intermediate versions can sometimes exist as staff comments and updated materials are submitted. Staff also said the version posted publicly for the meeting was the version the board was considering that night.
Even so, the exchange fueled broader frustration from critics of the project, who argued the lack of clearly marked revisions only deepened concerns about traffic safety, site distance, and whether the public was being asked to respond to moving targets.
Theriault also submitted photographs and documentation challenging the plans and raising concerns about site distance, traffic flow, and public safety. He argued that the board was being asked to rely on incomplete or misleading information.
Matthew Theriault, general manager of businesses located at 243, 245, and 240 Bartlett Street, also spoke against the project. Theriault said Friday traffic related to the mosque has repeatedly disrupted access to his businesses, with vehicles blocking entrances and interfering with emergency towing operations. He said the site already suffers from overflow parking and argued that paving more space would not solve the underlying problem.
Board members acknowledged the repeated concerns from neighbors and business owners, but several said enforcement issues fell outside the planning board’s authority. Comments during the meeting emphasized that the board’s role was limited to determining whether the application met zoning and land use requirements, not resolving broader disputes involving enforcement, parking behavior, or city department coordination.
After discussion, the board approved the application with conditions. Those conditions include updating the final drawings to show the dumpster outside the required setback, revising the parking count to reflect any lost spaces, obtaining certification from a professional engineer that stormwater and site improvements were completed according to the approved plan, and securing any required building permit and certificate of occupancy before expanding building occupancy.
The board also required the applicant to submit materials explaining how the 192-person occupancy cap would be regulated. The approved limit is restricted to a maximum of 70 people in the northern portion of the building and 122 people in the southern portion, for a total of 192 occupants.
The motion passed by a 6–1 vote. Planning Board member Michael Marcotte cast the lone dissenting vote, raising concerns during the meeting about the plans, potential public safety issues, adverse impacts on neighboring businesses, and what he described as an over-intensification of the property.
