[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6058320,"mediaKeyId","3297480-a5d25df1d331f9b0c54a533659578ffd","parentId",3297480,"title","Lewiston board moves to allow small home food businesses, farm stands and limited metalworking as home occupations","audioSeconds",634,"startMs",1513040,"endMs",2147450,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3297480-a5d25df1d331f9b0c54a533659578ffd&start=1513&end=2147","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3297480-a5d25df1d331f9b0c54a533659578ffd/thumbnail_1513040.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6058320/Lewiston/Androscoggin-County/Maine/Lewiston-board-moves-to-allow-small-home-food-businesses-farm-stands-and-limited-metalworking-as-home-occupations","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6058320-07cd7163a424b01de9f97ea082d40f1d/orig.mp4?Expires=1775183017&Signature=Av3AxR-k-hGNgnRBSzcC5gS9Luv3CGOO7g5gDA4EYMBkWLH4-TEY0uBfh7aukzZTaSdr0lwdF4Ngwbp6K7I6OofIshEgTzSZNQxgZg-r1iZAgVRa-vXA3zCd5EF1pSwR6h1XXX24vaAwxMYozYEgWSIBQKpDLwoe0Wg4maFIzTth4OQs60QVeRRQF2ttNqhViQy8TEUPIUvbELN9mB57uu0EjKprTcKufE1fQnRsT60Z~f0pMAG~hNick0c4cLmRsEm3W7kaPgKjfI97rlXtBau3ErLrUJU8JqFEC2tyZQMx~TKd0Rh146FmYlutJKCEE0zCsRXfXh~LxK5u8BptoQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Lewiston","date","2025-05-13T11:45:03Z","article","The Lewiston Planning Board voted to recommend that the City Council adopt amendments to Appendix A Article 12 (performance standards) and Article 2 (definitions) to expand which activities may qualify as home occupations and to add a definition for potentially hazardous foods.

Under the proposed changes, state‑ and city‑licensed home food businesses limited to non‑potentially hazardous foods would be allowed as a Tier 1 home occupation; farm stands with a retail footprint of 40 square feet or less would qualify for Tier 1 while larger farm stands would be Tier 2; and metalworking (replacing a narrower “welding” listing) and woodworking would be allowable as Tier 2 activities. The board also asked staff to treat the 40‑square‑foot threshold as the retail footprint (the floor plan in use) and to mirror that language in Tier 2 provisions.

Planning staff told the board the health definition to distinguish potentially hazardous foods is placed in the definitions section. “Specifically, it’s any food that requires control for time or temperature for the safety of the food,” staff said during the meeting, and staff noted that state licensing often already limits the list of allowable home food items. The board discussed whether to identify “bakeries” specifically or use broader wording such as “home food businesses limited to non‑potentially hazardous foods”; members agreed broader language is preferable to accommodate future state changes.

Board members debated the farm‑stand square footage and footprint metric. Some members proposed a lower number (20–24 square feet) to represent a single table or a small unmanned egg dispenser; others favored 40 square feet as a practical upper limit for a Tier 1 home occupation while leaving larger or permanent structures to Tier 2 review. The board agreed to retain 40 square feet of retail footprint as the Tier 1 threshold and to clarify the meaning of footprint in the ordinance language.

The board also amended a planned wording change to expand the list of permitted Tier 2 activities by replacing “welding” with “metalworking” (to more clearly include forging and related activities). Planning staff warned that some metalworking activities may have additional safety or code implications and that applicants may face building‑ or fire‑safety review.

The board voted (6–1) to forward the Article 12 and Article 2 amendments to the City Council with the discussed clarifications. Member Michael Marcotte voted no on Article 12 changes, citing concerns about metalworking and similar activities in residential areas.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning Board Meeting 05/12/2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Lewiston Planning Board recommended the City Council permit state‑ and city‑licensed home food businesses limited to non‑potentially hazardous foods, allow small farm stands as Tier 1 home occupations with a 40‑square‑foot retail footprint, and expand Tier 2 home occupations to include metalworking and woodworking.","taxTitle","Lewiston, Androscoggin County, Maine","taxId",2584,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6058325,"Lewiston planning board backs looser rules for temporary on-site housing during owner-occupied construction",1356,101525,1457805,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3297480-a5d25df1d331f9b0c54a533659578ffd&start=101&end=1457","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3297480-a5d25df1d331f9b0c54a533659578ffd/thumbnail_101525.jpg","/articles/6058325/Lewiston/Androscoggin-County/Maine/Lewiston-planning-board-backs-looser-rules-for-temporary-on-site-housing-during-owner-occupied-construction","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6058325-b3485c709ee0cfcd4067f8fd8485fb03/orig.mp4?Expires=1775183017&Signature=kkkw9hMZP4G2RA02uzvBMB9PaFw-XnVdjTkWtPRSLNM~MJ9ug6GC0RtJladd5kuvpf5x3Pd7pQxPXH3MbN9U1pQRErZ6EvR5Tij~MHDue2G0GC5uQ3a12BgDiz2DF~N0Kk7lhs5tcDoBbF6qmRqR5OL3Kl2Py1wq-7LhzVI-LPtio2etK0UQQ98yHe0Qmh9pmFdLjLM3s5oHF6KhX4AmyGuDUkCG7i5j-bLv0H8EHh-l0jexNzPiIr5LkQ7PJDOKTVSJ67A9Aw2G1HfJfJT3PgdOAlx7cIbsI~nCDHxdeS0eG88nRQlosrgve~C~5bRr5xGs1y~n6dJqVqK1lJmbtQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Lewiston Planning Board on April 28 voted to recommend that the City Council adopt amendments to Appendix A, Article 5 of the city’s zoning and land use code to allow temporary on-site housing during the construction of new owner-occupied dwelling units, increase permit duration, and permit off-grid utility systems under specified conditions.

The change would make temporary housing available “upon the construction of a new owner occupied dwelling unit on a vacant lot,” increase the initial permit to 12 months with a single extension allowed, and allow off-grid electrical and waste arrangements if authorized by the electrical inspector or if staff approves an alternate water/waste management plan. The board’s motion was made pursuant to Article 7, Section 4 and Article 17, Section 5 of the zoning and land use code and passed by roll call vote (6–1).

Planning staff presented the amendments as a package of edits to Article 5. “Section 3 e, temporary housing. There are 4 changes,” staff summarized during the presentation, listing eligibility, the removal of an applicant demonstration requirement, the 12‑month permit term and extension option, and rules for utility systems. The board discussed how the language should address accessory dwelling units and multiple-unit owner-occupied scenarios, and agreed to substitute the phrase “owner occupied dwelling unit” for earlier references to “single‑family” to avoid excluding ADU configurations permitted by recent state law.

Board members pressed staff on operational details. Alexander Pine raised whether ADUs built as part of a single‑family project would still qualify; staff and board members agreed the revised wording—allowing temporary housing while constructing a new owner‑occupied dwelling unit—was intended to cover common ADU situations while limiting temporary housing to one unit per lot at a time. Commissioner Roger Dupree and others asked about permitting limits and technical requirements for off‑grid systems; staff said electrical inspector authorization and approved water/waste plans would be required when the temporary unit is not connected to municipal services.

Not all members supported the package. Michael Marcotte said he could not back the temporary housing changes. “I I can't support the temporary housing, changes,” he said during discussion. The motion to forward a favorable recommendation passed by roll call: Roger Dupree, Mark Roy, Shanna Cox, Amy Smith, Alexander Pine and Zoe Lindstrom voted yes; Michael Marcotte voted no. Zoe Lindstrom served and voted as the associate member in place of an absent regular member.

The recommendation now goes to the Lewiston City Council for its consideration; staff said they will provide the amended ordinance language and the board record for the council packet.","The Lewiston Planning Board voted to send a favorable recommendation to the City Council for changes to Article 5 of the zoning and land use code that expand and clarify when temporary on-site housing may be used for construction of owner-occupied dwelling units, lengthen permit duration, and allow off-grid systems with inspector approval.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6058315,"Planning board workshops PUD ordinance draft, asks staff to return draft (not as public hearing)",2169,4652750,6822375,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3297480-a5d25df1d331f9b0c54a533659578ffd&start=4652&end=6822","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3297480-a5d25df1d331f9b0c54a533659578ffd/thumbnail_4652750.jpg","/articles/6058315/Lewiston/Androscoggin-County/Maine/Planning-board-workshops-PUD-ordinance-draft-asks-staff-to-return-draft-not-as-public-hearing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6058315-b77badc06dc203e1a7abce6c75ad84d4/orig.mp4?Expires=1775183017&Signature=J7YsjhDowCpCoM4mmrxEe60FbsOGg3x6vq5xPqG13cMDM4c0dZe9BH6RqCt~sjsy8NM1NsXhhWqg9zcmCb~AESln8GzdaSDJW87z5~4-eJfuNjPZMM6Yd2GcvmixbPOWXQOvRjaDra7vzbeI~WFYIXG492dxO6NUbF-jhq0xvISQDfRUWWyYwR-Pp2~AR-gSgQvd1b~WX62nz0jqK90~HicCdsrjCTdJshlJq8O58ai820NBBNcXRiPtKnavQQv95b8vlHdzBPVexgtWJpdqzoirxXRgXZHDEB7j3DhDSeQeDSDgZLx7dQq-A82yfbsaHgz2A~pxoNkSm31oAUp2ZA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Planning staff returned to the board to continue development of a planned unit development (PUD) ordinance and asked for direction on scope and incentives. Board members and staff discussed purpose language, eligible zoning districts, incentive mechanics (density bonuses, parking flexibility, buffers), and affordability terms for ownership and rental units.

Staff reported that the draft purpose and permitted‑use lists were intended to be broad and not limited to residential uses; several board members asked that the language explicitly allow industrial and commercial PUDs where appropriate. The board agreed that the ordinance should permit PUDs in all city zoning districts so long as proposals meet the ordinance purposes and standards rather than restricting eligibility by district.

Members debated incentive structures. For residential uses the draft ties bonuses to additional dwelling units; staff noted that commercial and industrial incentives may be better expressed through reduced parking requirements, modified impervious‑surface calculations, or other dimensional relaxations rather than a conventional dwelling‑unit density bonus. Board members asked staff to consider concrete, measurable incentives for commercial/industrial proposals (for example, reduced parking ratios, waivers of some buffer requirements, or impervious‑surface allowances) and to show how incentives would stack or interact.

The board discussed affordability and resale controls for units created under the PUD. Members asked staff to research typical approaches (e.g., 10‑ and 30‑year deed‑restriction models, resale price or AMI indexing) and return with examples and recommended language that balances long‑term affordability with owners' ability to build equity.

Board members requested that staff provide a draft ordinance text for workshop review rather than present a draft first in a public hearing; the board said it wants an opportunity to work through proposed wording in a staff‑led workshop so the public hearing can present a more mature, near‑final draft. Staff said they would return with a draft ordinance that incorporates this meeting's direction and with options on incentives, affordable‑housing term lengths, and commercial/industrial incentive mechanisms.","Board members continued work on a proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinance, asked staff to include industrial and mixed‑use options, to refine incentive language (density, parking and buffers), and requested staff present a draft ordinance for workshop review (not a public hearing) before bringing formal council materials.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Lewiston board moves to allow small home food businesses, farm stands and limited metalworking as home occupations

Lewiston planning board backs looser rules for temporary on-site housing during owner-occupied construction

Planning board workshops PUD ordinance draft, asks staff to return draft (not as public hearing)