Lewiston council reverses prior denial for partial rezoning at 132 Thane Road

City Attorney Jennifer Tangano told the council the matter before them was a request for reconsideration of the council's earlier denial of Z & C 24-4, an application to rezone the easterly 43 feet of 132 Thane Road from Community Commercial (C3) to Medium Density Residential (R3). Tangano summarized the record, the Planning & Zoning Commission's prior hearings and recommendation, the council's November 25 public hearing and the December 9 adoption of a reason statement, and the December 16 request for reconsideration filed by the applicant, CLC Sales Incorporated.

Tangano advised the council on the statutory and local-code standards that govern reconsideration and rezoning, and she reviewed the five relevant criteria in Lewiston City Code 37-185 (comprehensive plan conformance; whether the property is better suited for the proposed zone; impacts of incompatible uses; burden on delivery of services; and size/intensity/density). She told the council, "To be valid, a rezoning decision must be supported by adequate findings of fact to support a conclusion that the zoning amendment is in accordance with an adopted comprehensive plan." The attorney also said the council could affirm, reverse or modify its prior decision but should rely on the existing record rather than taking new evidence.

Councilors then addressed each criterion in turn. Councilor Klein said she believed the rezoning was "in general conformance with the Lewiston comprehensive plan" and argued the property's location and the mixed-use character of the area supported the change. Other councilors voiced agreement on the relevant factors as they were read aloud.

Mayor Johnson moved, and Council President Klieberg seconded, to direct staff to draft a written statement reversing the council's prior denial of Z & C 24-4 and to incorporate by reference the Planning & Zoning Commission's reason statement. The motion passed on a voice vote.

The council's action directs staff to prepare a written decision reflecting the council's stated reasons; Tangano reminded members to articulate conclusions for each criterion so that the written decision will contain adequate findings to support the result. The council did not solicit new testimony or reopen the hearing during the reconsideration.

What remains: staff was directed to draft the reversal and prepare a final written statement for the council's approval. The transcript indicates the motion carried by voice vote; the council did not record a roll-call tally in the meeting minutes provided.