LEWISTON — The City Council passed a first reading Tuesday on new language defining transitional housing, and is toying with the idea of a moratorium aimed at Lewiston Housing’s proposed project at the Ramada Hotel.

After a lengthy debate Tuesday that spanned transitional housing, the Ramada, recovery houses and group homes, the council passed a first reading of language that would adopt a definition of transitional housing.

The definition would be incorporated into the city’s zoning language, which along with an amendment to the city’s shelter ordinance approved Tuesday, stipulates “the term homeless shelter includes transitional housing.”

If ultimately adopted, any transitional housing programs would need to obtain a homeless shelter license in order to operate. However, several people disagreed that transitional housing should be regulated in the same manner.

At the same time, a majority of councilors said a moratorium might be needed as a “backstop” in case discussions on transitional housing continue into the fall, and close to when Lewiston Housing could assume ownership of the hotel at 490 Pleasant St. Councilors voted 4-3 in favor of adding a moratorium vote to the Sept. 5 agenda.

Just before the meeting Tuesday, the city of Portland announced that the Ramada would be used to temporarily house asylum seekers until permanent housing can be found, which is unrelated to Lewiston Housing’s potential purchase of the property for transitional housing.

That project is still being worked out, and the hotel is still privately owned. However, Lewiston Housing does have a purchase and sale agreement in place with a closing date listed as on or before Oct. 31. On Tuesday, officials said the goal would be to have asylum seeker families resettled by Nov. 1.

When raising the idea of a moratorium, Councilor Rick LaChapelle said his phone “hasn’t stopped ringing” due to Lewiston Housing’s proposal, and that he believes a moratorium could be used to halt “any transitional housing that’s trying to come into the city for a period of time so we can review and define and go over everything.”

He said he’s heard from residents who are “drastically against that facility being turned into transitional housing.”

Councilor Lee Clement, who has previously sparred with Lewiston Housing over the project, said he’s looking to regulate the project “to make sure what’s happening in this city is in the best interest of this city.” He said he’s also received comments from several people about the proposal, and doesn’t like that the City Council would have no say in the project. The Planning Board, however, would vet any such proposal.

Other councilors and Mayor Carl Sheline said they already disagreed with holding transitional housing in the same regard as shelters, and that a moratorium was not needed.

“I’m confused that this was aimed at the Ramada when at our last meeting everyone sang the praises of this proposal,” Councilor Scott Harriman said, adding that the city’s shelter ordinance was developed for shelters, not for transitional housing. “To try to shoehorn this different type of housing into that, it just doesn’t fit. It’s not the same thing.”

The Housing Committee recommended against including transitional housing in the definition of homeless shelter, because it said a range of provisions in the shelter ordinance do not apply to transitional housing and could create “significant unintended consequences.”

One of those was the potential impact to recovery residences. However, following significant public comment Tuesday, the council agreed to stipulate transitional housing does not include recovery houses.

“I appreciate the effort to carve out the exception for recovery housing, but I’m struggling to see why we need this agenda item at all,” Sheline said.

A majority of the council agreed that the transitional housing definition should be passed in first reading, which will then send it to the Planning Board for a public hearing and recommendation. Ultimately, the council voted 6-1 on the first reading, with Harriman opposed.

However, it wasn’t until the very end of the meeting that the council hashed out whether it wanted to also have a moratorium on the next meeting’s agenda.

LaChapelle, Clement and Councilors Bob McCarthy and Larry Pease supported adding a moratorium vote to the Sept. 5 agenda.

“I think we should have it there, and if we don’t feel we need it, we don’t vote on it,” LaChapelle said.

Harriman said a moratorium is a waste of staff time and money for the legal ads and review.

In a statement Wednesday, Sheline said, “Our neighbors who need transitional housing are not the enemy and it is regrettable that the council feels the need to place a moratorium on the agenda. Our last moratorium was an incredible drain on city staff and resources and this one would be just as misguided. I think it’s possible to work through our differences without sending the wrong message to our residents and introducing uncertainty for developers.”