Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lewiston council approves multiple zoning changes, rejects 20‑foot minimum height provision
Summary
The council approved a package of zoning and land‑use amendments (ADU and daycare definitions, multiple principal structures, setback variances and several performance standards) and rejected proposed district bulk/height changes that included a 20‑foot minimum building height for some zones.
The Lewiston City Council voted on a series of zoning and land‑use amendments during its regular meeting. Staff indicated most items were legislative changes responding to state requirements or prior first readings and recommended final passage.
Key outcomes:
- Amendments to Article 2 (definitions) covering accessory dwelling units (ADUs), daycares and a new tree‑caliper definition were approved by roll‑call vote.
- An amendment to allow more than one principal structure on residential lots (Article 5) passed 7‑0; staff said this change supports flexible lot use.
- Changes to Article 9 (appeals and variances) on setback variances for dwelling units were approved 7‑0.
- A package of performance‑standard amendments (Article 12) addressing fences in front setbacks, ADU and parking requirements and daycare terminology passed 7‑0.
- Council debated changes to Article 11 (district regulations) that proposed space, bulk and dimensional updates, including a 20‑foot minimum height in certain neighborhood commercial zones. Multiple councilors said the 20‑foot minimum could discourage redevelopment and affordable housing on undersized lots; citing potential unintended consequences, the council rejected that amendment — the motion failed 0‑7.
During discussion, Director Conner and councilors stressed the importance of referring some items back to the planning board for committee review where changes would be substantive. Councilors also asked staff to return with clearer rationale for height minimums if the planning board endorses them.
Council members framed the votes as steps to balance neighborhood character, redevelopment potential and affordability while aligning the code with legislative changes and ongoing planning work.
