Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Residents urge commissioners to intervene over proposed multi‑unit project in single‑family neighborhood
Loading...
Summary
Multiple residents told the Lewistown City Commission they oppose a proposed 40‑unit apartment building in a single‑family area, citing density, parking and notice concerns and asking elected officials to review a Planning/Board of Adjustment decision.
Several Lewistown property owners urged the City Commission on April 6 to take a more active role in reviewing a Planning/Board of Adjustment decision that they say allowed a large apartment complex in a primarily single‑family neighborhood.
"You're putting 40 apartments in a postage stamp," said Ed Butcher, who identified himself as a property owner in Lewistown. He told commissioners the project's variances conflict with zoning standards intended to "avoid undue concentration of population" and protect the "character of the district," and he predicted heavy on‑street parking and problems with winter snow removal if the project proceeds.
Butcher told the commission the board of adjustment that heard the appeal was appointed, and he urged the elected commission to "take control" of the outcome. His remarks reflected a broader theme among commenters that the scale of the proposed building is inconsistent with surrounding homes and that notification and public outreach were inadequate.
Michelle Rainey, who said she owns a house near the site, told the commission that many residents outside the standard notice radius were not contacted. Using the developer's unit mix, she estimated parking demand would be roughly 66 vehicles and said the neighborhood lacks public transit to absorb that demand.
"When you put a 4‑story marketable complex in the middle of a single‑house residential area, it could drop property values and create congestion," Rainey said.
Other speakers recommended alternative approaches. Robert Roods, a member of the city ordinance committee, suggested the city consider developing or marketing an 18–19‑acre city‑owned parcel ('Bird property') by adding sewer and water mains to attract local builders instead of accommodating a high‑density out‑of‑town development. John Carlson, another commenter, asked for clearer public information about the city's organizational structure and decisionmaking authority.
City Manager Holly Phelps did not propose a legislative action at the meeting. She noted the board of adjustment's proceedings are recorded for minutes purposes and that the city has processes — including appeals described in the city charter and code — for residents seeking remedies. Commissioners repeatedly urged residents to use the charter and city code as avenues for appeals and asked citizens to attend the upcoming board of adjustment hearing.
What happens next: Commissioners and residents said the board of adjustment will meet again (the city noted a meeting is scheduled) and residents asked commissioners to attend. The commission did not take a legislative vote on the development during the April 6 meeting; the remarks were recorded in the public comment period.
