Lewiston planning commission unanimously recommends denial of large agricultural-to-residential rezoning after extensive public comment

The Lewiston Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 on July 2, 2025, to recommend denial of a rezoning application from Dan L. Wright Lewiston Partnership LTD that would change agricultural (A‑10) parcels 91619 and 91618 to an R‑10 residential designation.

Dozens of residents turned out for a public hearing, raising recurring concerns about surface water, drainage maintenance, sewer capacity, roads, school capacity and the city’s character. Several speakers said the proposal would convert roughly 74–80 acres of farmland and could allow as many as 137 homes; those figures were cited by speakers and described as estimates by residents rather than an applicant-certified count.

"Has there been a hydrology study by a civil engineering company performed on this property in regard to mitigating the surface water?" asked Ken Hogard, a resident who identified himself during public comment. Multiple commenters described repeated flooding incidents on neighboring lots in recent years; Holly Hanson, an adjacent property owner, said, "Our house has flooded. We have had thousands of dollars in damage that we have still not been able to fix. If this property is rezoned, all of that water will be in my backyard."

Brandon Allen, who identified himself as a trustee of Drainage District 6, cited the city ordinance on storm drainage and raised practical concerns about meeting finished‑grade requirements. "In the ordinance that no storm water can be forced off of the development project property," Allen said, and he estimated that bringing the land above known high‑water mark would require large volumes of fill. Allen also noted the district's limited maintenance budget.

Several commenters urged slower, targeted growth and preservation of Lewiston’s farming character. "We love Lewiston as it is as a farming community," Neil Jones said, urging the commission to deny the application. Simone Holyoke reported an informal online poll of 34 respondents that she said showed 91.2% strong opposition.

Public‑safety and service impacts were also raised. Corinne Earhart, who said she serves as an EMT and firefighter, told the commission the community could face an increased call volume if new housing were added. "If we're gonna add a 137 homes and say the average is 4 people per home, we're looking at 550 more people to serve," Earhart said.

During discussion the commission repeatedly referred to the city's general plan and subdivision standards. A planning commissioner read sections of the general plan that prioritize protecting farmland, minimizing encroachment of residential uses on agricultural land and concentrating single‑family development where roads, water and sewer are already in place.

Commissioners said they lacked firm, engineer‑verified information on critical infrastructure needs — particularly sewer capacity, access roads and drainage agreements with local districts — and expressed concern that the current application requested an R‑10 designation for lots roughly 10,000 square feet in size (about a quarter‑acre) without the accompanying subdivision engineering and utility assurances. "The proposed zoning does not appear to be located where existing roads and sewer lines can readily serve it," one commissioner said during the deliberation.

After discussion, the commission took a roll‑call vote: Delon Mortimer — no; Abel Herrera — no; Jake Higley — no; Jared Glover — no; Patty Weiser — no. The 5‑0 vote was recorded as a recommendation to deny the rezoning to the Lewiston City Council. City staff and commissioners clarified that the planning commission’s vote is advisory; a change to the city’s code would require final approval by the elected city council.

John, a Lewiston city councilman who attended the meeting, reminded residents about disclosure and procedure and explained the next steps: the commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to city council, which could consider the matter as soon as the next scheduled council meeting (the third Tuesday). The commission also said it planned to accelerate a pending general‑plan update in cooperation with consulting firm Bragg; staff estimated the master‑plan update could take roughly nine months to a year and said surveys for public input would be forthcoming.

The commission did not approve the rezoning request; the city council will receive the recommendation and may take a different action when it considers the application.