Lewiston planners begin review of 78.65-acre rezoning application amid community concerns over farm land, flooding and ethics

The Lewiston Planning and Zoning Commission on April 2, 2025 held an initial discussion of a rezoning application for Parcel 09-016-0019 and 09-016-0018, totaling 78.65 acres, and heard more than an hour of public comment about protecting agricultural land, stormwater and infrastructure impacts and the need for ethics disclosures. No formal vote on the rezoning was held.

The rezoning matter drew a broad cross-section of residents who urged caution. ‘‘I am here to formally request an immediate moratorium on all rezonings, subdivision approvals, and building permits in the city of Lewiston,’’ said Roy Hall, a resident, citing the Utah Public Officers and Employees Ethics Acts and saying the city had failed to produce required annual disclosures. Hall said omissions could expose past and future approvals to legal challenge and recommended a third-party audit and an attorney general investigation.

Resident Cameron Little presented technical material about runoff and flood risk, telling the commission that urbanization produces ‘‘a flashy system’’ with higher, faster stormwater peaks and urging a thorough drainage feasibility study and clear identification of who would be responsible for managing drainage easements. Little also read a written statement from Brandon Allen that referenced Lewiston municipal code provisions governing stormwater and the stated purpose of the agricultural zone to preserve permanent agricultural use.

Other residents spoke about Lewiston’s rural character and infrastructure capacity. ‘‘Lewiston is a very special place,’’ said EJ Welker, a resident, adding that the town’s agricultural landscape and small-town feel were reasons to resist large-scale subdivision. Misty Allen and Heidi Welker described choosing Lewiston for its rural life and warned against rapid suburban-style growth. Gerald Smith, a longtime resident, urged caution and recalled past planning work intended to protect farmland.

Staff and commission members described the procedural steps that would govern any rezoning. Abel (staff member) told the commission an application had been received for the two parcels and reminded the public that the commission and city code use the city’s general plan as a guiding document. Abel noted the general plan and its maps had not been updated in about 10 years and that the current future land use map directs growth where sewer and water infrastructure already exist.

Abel also summarized building-permit activity for the first quarter of 2025: three electrical permits, one remodel and two single-family home permits issued so far this year, compared with four single-family home permits for all of last year. He and other commission members said subdivision and stormwater design standards must be met before any subdivision approval, and that developers are required to present plans demonstrating how stormwater will be handled.

Britney Alfau, regional planner at the Bear River Association of Governments, said her office could help the city update the general plan, maps and codes and would lead a public-engagement process. Commissioners said the city will pursue an update to the general plan, will hold public hearings when that work begins and will consult engineers and relevant water/drainage entities, including the drainage district and canal company. The commission also said it will require engineers’ plans addressing stormwater and wastewater impacts before approving subdivisions.

The commission emphasized process: public input, compatibility with the city’s general plan and compliance with subdivision and stormwater design standards are required elements of any rezoning or subdivision review. Commissioners repeatedly noted tonight’s session was an initial discussion; they said subsequent meetings, technical studies and hearings will be needed before any decision. The commission did not vote on the rezoning application at the April 2 meeting.

Votes at a glance: The commission approved the March minutes after a motion and second; the transcript records the chair calling for ‘‘all in favor’’ and attendees responding ‘‘Aye,’’ but a detailed roll-call vote and numeric tally were not specified in the transcript. The commission later moved to adjourn, and the meeting was closed.

Next steps: The commission and staff said they will post materials on the city website, solicit public input as part of a general-plan update, request technical analyses (including stormwater engineering), and coordinate with the Bear River Association of Governments on plan updates. No formal rezoning action or timetable was set at the April 2 meeting.