[0:00] board meeting to order. Uh, chairman Ed
Bear is not able to be here tonight, so
[0:05] as vice chair, I will be filling in for
him this evening. I will go ahead and
[0:10] start with roll call to my left,
[0:20] » Chelsea Eaton,
>> Bob Hayes, Bilah Hussein,
[0:24] » Morin Hopkins,
>> Tim D. Ro,
[0:27] » Andrea Westby. Great. Uh, I'd like to
welcome our two new associate members,
[0:32] Chelsea Eaton and Kathy Shaw. Um,
Chelsea, I will be elevating you to full
[0:37] member tonight um in Ed's absence and
Kathy will be elevating you to full
[0:42] member tonight uh in Riley's absence.
Right. Our first item tonight is a
[0:49] public hearing on chapter 60 zoning
amendment. Uh, city council initiated
[0:55] requests for the planning board to
review proposed changes to chapter 60
[0:59] zoning and the agricultural and resource
protection zone to streng strengthen
[1:04] protections for natural resources for
solar and residential permit projects
[1:08] and make a recommendation to the
council.
[1:13] » Yes. So, um, these are you should have
received a paper packet of eight pages
[1:19] and um, it's also on the screen as well.
These are proposed changes to increased
[1:24] protections of farmland in the axom for
new residential development and new
[1:30] solar development. Um, planning staff
met with the SNRB committee on Tuesday
[1:35] to go over the proposed changes. You
should also have a copy of their minutes
[1:40] as well. It's a one-pager that
summarizes um their com the comments
[1:44] that they have. The purpose of this
meeting tonight will be to garner
[1:49] additional feedback from the planning
board and then bring feedback from both
[1:53] committees to the council for the
council eventually to adopt these
[1:56] changes. Um so as of right now at this
meeting uh the board will be taking
[2:01] public comment and um adding any
additional thoughts on the proposed
[2:06] changes. So to go over some highlights
of these um the biggest things that have
[2:10] changed are um initially the previous
language said for new single family
[2:16] homes they should be avoid being cited
on soils of state importance. That
[2:23] language has been changed to say that
they cannot be cited on farmland of
[2:28] statewide importance or prime farmland
soils. This is deferring to the state
[2:34] definition. So um the state defines
prime farmland as soils that have the
[2:41] greatest characteristics to support
farming activity and agriculture
[2:46] activity and um farmland of statewide
significance is is the same. Um it's
[2:53] it's anything that does not fall under
prime farmland. So soils that have uh
[2:59] characteristics such as uh uh looking at
depth to water table erodability uh
[3:05] characteristics of providing food and
forage. Um so that's what the USDA
[3:10] defines those two categories as.
Additionally for new single family homes
[3:16] they initially it said avoid being cited
on land determined to be essential
[3:20] habitat. It says it cannot be cited on
land determined to be essential habitat
[3:25] as well as you cannot site a new home on
wetlands or in slopes greater than 25%.
[3:31] And the change with solar um the biggest
change with solar is that initially
[3:36] in determining um in determining prime
farmland soils.
[3:42] Initially um it was using the NRCS maps
but now you have to have a licensed soil
[3:49] evaluator go to the site to evaluate
whether the soils are prime farmland. Um
[3:54] so that's another change as well.
Um and I think um at the moment we will
[3:59] take uh any uh any additional uh public
comment on these and any planning board
[4:06] thoughts at the moment.
>> Thank you. Does anyone on the planning
[4:11] board have any questions for Sam?
[4:17] » Um,
there's something on page seven, uh,
[4:23] section G.
Um, I would like to understand this
[4:29] better because this is a little
confusing to me. It says,
[4:36] uh, not be cited on prime farmland.
farmland of statewide importance as
[4:41] defined by USDA NRCS. Okay. And then it
says the determination of whether that
[4:49] land is prime farmland or of statewide
importance
[4:54] shall be made by a soil scientist from
so Maine uh Department of A conservation
[5:02] and forestry.
So
[5:05] I'm just confused by that. I don't
understand who is making the decision
[5:09] because first it says NRCS and then it
says Department of A conservation and
[5:14] forestry.
>> So the the licensed soil scientist would
[5:20] go to the site and make a determination
as to whether the so as to whether it's
[5:25] prime farmland or farmland of statewide
importance. So previously
[5:31] uh the language was very open-ended and
and
[5:35] you would defer typically to the soils
maps which are less accurate.
[5:44] So this is basically saying a
statelicicensed professional will
[5:48] determine whether or not the soil meets
the standards listed in the USDA and
[5:54] » Yes. Exactly. Yeah.
>> Thank you.
[6:04] So, I have a question. Um, do we know
what percent of the AGRP currently falls
[6:12] under like prime uh farmland of
statewide significance?
[6:18] » You're asking about the percentage of
the zoning district that's in prime
[6:21] farmland,
>> right?
[6:23] » Um, I don't have that information.
Okay.
[6:31] I want to I want to play Go ahead. I
want to play devil's advocate. Um, we're
[6:37] making things more restrictive and I can
understand there are reasons to do that.
[6:42] My question is this. Um, and I've been
having a hard time finding an answer in
[6:48] section 60.
We're we may be advocating to put
[6:54] certain areas of land under an
undetermined amount of time protection
[7:00] from any building whatsoever. So
hypothetically,
[7:05] a parcel of land that is considered
prime farmland, we could go a century
[7:12] and no one puts a farm on that land.
We have land that hasn't been used. It's
[7:20] been reserved. Hasn't been used.
Do any do we have any time
[7:29] considerations in any of this language
where if after x amount of time
[7:33] nothing's happened, well then yeah,
maybe we could consider changing that.
[7:38] Or is this end of it until the end of
time? you know there's we're being very
[7:44] restrictive
without allowing any understanding of
[7:49] future events.
Do you know any have any idea about
[7:54] that?
>> I mean there's nothing in here about a
[7:57] timeline
in terms of if something's left as prime
[8:01] farmland.
Um I mean it is I think the the intent
[8:06] of this is to be as restrictive as
possible to attempt to preserve more
[8:12] farmland. Um I think there were issues
of you know homes being being developed
[8:19] in places that you know they shouldn't
have been built in. Same with solar as
[8:23] well.
But my question is if we go 100 years
[8:26] and no one ever builds a farm there, but
we there's people that need housing,
[8:32] there needs
I know the argument is going to be made
[8:36] by somebody or at least the thoughts of
well so we're going to take X percentage
[8:41] of land out of Auburn's land use that
nobody can ever do anything with that
[8:46] land could sit hypothetically for 150
years and just nothing happened to it.
[8:51] Correct. Yeah, that's a possibility.
[8:56] » But I think we have to realize as
history has shown us this question comes
[9:02] up
within a few years probably and you know
[9:08] even our comprehensive plan is being
worked on now which has like a 10y year
[9:13] probably a 15year duration.
So th this will be reviewed I'm sure uh
[9:21] within a decade or more.
[9:32] Thank you for those great questions. Um
I'm not sure that it specifies um that
[9:38] the cost of that soil test should be
um borne by the person that is will that
[9:48] is interested in using that land.
>> I don't see that specified here.
[9:54] » Yeah, that that's a great point. Um
yeah, that was a comment brought up at
[9:57] the SNRB meeting on Tuesday that I
forgot to mention. So those changes have
[10:02] not been incorporated yet. Um, I think
our plan is to uh take comments from the
[10:08] planning board and from the SNRB and
incorporate those changes into an
[10:13] updated draft to bring to the council.
So, at the SNRB, it was discussed about
[10:19] specifying who pays the cost of the soil
scientist and typically it's the
[10:24] developer or the applicant doing the
solar project who would pay. Um, so we
[10:29] can provide language that specifies that
as well. That's a great point. Any
[10:41] other questions for Sam?
[10:45] Okay. Uh, I will seek a motion to open
the public hearing.
[10:51] » So moved.
>> Seconded.
[10:53] » All in favor?
Okay. Public hearing is open. And if any
[10:58] members of the public would like to
speak, please uh come up to the
[11:02] microphone, introduce yourself with your
name and address, and you will have 5
[11:06] minutes.
[11:09] Steven Be 575 Johnson Road. I was a
member of a small drafting committee
[11:14] three years ago together with members of
other members of the public and staff
[11:20] members who did uh the complete overhaul
of the Azone ordinance at that time. It
[11:25] underwent major revisions. uh and I am
in favor of these more specific and
[11:32] restrictive amendments with especially
with respect to the uh solar arrays. Uh
[11:39] the problem with solar arrays is that
they are easiest and cheapest to build
[11:45] on the very best land that is best
suited for farmland. Uh, and it's a lot
[11:51] easier to build a solar array when you
don't have to go up a steep slope
[11:55] through a bog uh or drill into ledge
with uh and otherwise utilize land
[12:01] that's full of huge boulders uh which is
uh conversely the very best farmland. So
[12:07] that's why these proposed amendments I
believe were put forth and I urge that
[12:12] they be adopted in this fashion. Uh I
have not seen the comments of the SNRB.
[12:18] I looked online this morning to see if
they were available to the public and
[12:22] didn't see them. I I'm in favor of
adopting this ordinance as presently
[12:27] presented and addressing Mr. D. Ro's
concern that this could potentially
[12:32] create a reserve uh of substantial areas
of land for time indefinite. anyone who
[12:39] wants to uh can tomorrow afternoon
gather 25 signatures and seek to amend
[12:45] the zoning map or text of the ordinance
assuming that the text of the ordinance
[12:51] remained the same. If a particular area
which I believe was Mr. Droious's
[12:56] concern was very attractive for uh
housing development and nobody had used
[13:01] it for farming for any particular period
next week, next month, next year. Uh one
[13:09] can gather a petition together for 25 uh
citizens and present that to the city
[13:15] for change of the zoning map. Or
conversely or in addition, if one wish
[13:21] to change the text of the ordinance, you
can do that by the same medium. Uh or
[13:26] the city council could initiate another
change or the planning board itself
[13:31] could initiate a change, which it has
sought to do uh very recently with
[13:36] respect uh uh to the 20,000 square foot
minimum for lot size. that proposal
[13:44] initiated with the planning board just
within the last couple of weeks. So,
[13:48] there are plenty of other opportunities
to change ordinances or maps in the
[13:53] future as the city's needs dictate. So,
I urge adoption of these amendments as
[13:58] presented. Thank you.
>> Thank you,
[14:06] » Michelle Melerano, 576 Trap Road.
[14:13] For all the land that the city upgrades
to moderate or high growth areas,
[14:18] property owners taxes will be impacted
by that. But I think it would be an
[14:25] important step to make to to make sure
that those taxes aren't substantially
[14:30] increased unless
those existing property owners build or
[14:36] subdivide or sell that property. Those
properties should be grandfathered at
[14:44] their current tax rate. Otherwise,
farmers may be at considerable risk of
[14:49] losing their land and their businesses
when property taxes increase
[14:54] exponentially, especially if they're
going from agriculture resource
[14:57] protection to high density areas.
[15:02] Regarding large solar arrays on
agriculture and resource protection
[15:05] land, if the property is confirmed to
have PAS contamination, which should
[15:11] clearly uh be determined via city or
state testing prior to any status
[15:16] changes or projects getting underway,
then that property
[15:22] should potentially be eligible by
special exception, I would assume, for
[15:27] solar. Um again, especially for
agriculture operations, this may be the
[15:33] only avenue available to farmers to
actually survive.
[15:38] Thank you. Thank you.
[15:44] Okay, seeing no one else, I'll seek a
motion to close the public hearing.
[15:49] » So moved.
>> Second. All in favor?
[15:54] Public hearing is closed.
There any follow-up questions for staff
[15:59] or anything that the board members would
like to discuss?
[16:09] Actually, that last uh reference to PAS
was an issue that was brought up at the
[16:15] uh uh meeting Tuesday night. So I think
it is a subject that should be discussed
[16:23] be providing some provision if farmland
has been
[16:29] so designated but then is found to be
PAS contaminated that that may be a
[16:35] appropriate use for that particular
parcel.
[16:38] » I totally agree with you Bob. Um,
is uh Sam, is there verbiage or talk of
[16:47] verbiage of properties that are known to
be PAS contaminated if they would be um
[16:54] how they would be handled in reference
to this proposed change?
[16:58] » Yeah. So, that was discussed Tuesday's
meeting. There's not any verbiage in
[17:03] there right now. Um, I think potentially
we could add language in there. um um
[17:11] somewhere
probably um do doing for like erosion
[17:17] control in solar and other other
language as well. Um I don't currently
[17:21] have a list of properties that have
historically had POS
[17:27] but it was discussed. Yeah. Yeah, that
was my next question is if staff has
[17:30] awareness of what and where we have
significant PAS issues within City of
[17:36] Auburn.
But anyway, I'm Thank you so much for
[17:40] the public for bringing that up. That's
an absolutely outstanding point.
[17:47] If a property is contaminated with PAS,
that's a fact.
[17:54] they the the property owner would not
have to get a special exception
[18:02] in order to put solar on that property.
I would assume like you if you've
[18:06] already proven that your property is
contaminated by the POS,
[18:13] you are now considered I would assume
you're now considered no longer in
[18:19] statewide importance because you've got
PIFA. So, you wouldn't have to do you
[18:23] wouldn't have to get a special
exception, I would think, in order you
[18:26] could just you could just do it. Is that
right?
[18:30] » That's what I was getting to with
whether or not there's verbiage in this
[18:33] section because we would need to have
that to go by.
[18:36] » Um, out of curiosity,
does anybody know if
[18:42] the the any properties in Auburn that
are contaminated with PAS that that's
[18:49] known? Is that all farmland or is some
of it now maybe has been grown in and is
[18:56] now forested? Does that question make
sense? Do we know? I'm just curious.
[19:00] » Yeah, I don't know for sure. I I suspect
most of it is farmland,
[19:06] but I can't say.
[19:11] Do you know if the criteria that would
designate it prime farmland um
[19:20] would negate um that designation if
there were PAS found on the property? Do
[19:26] we need an exception process or are you
not prime farmland if it's contaminated?
[19:33] I mean, if it's contaminated, you're
you're not I mean, they would the
[19:37] scientists would check all those things,
but um yeah, I'd say it would no longer
[19:42] be in those categories.
>> So, in that case, an exception wouldn't
[19:47] really be needed. It just that would
remove it from that designation.
[19:51] » It would. Yeah.
>> Okay.
[19:54] » But just as a followup, is farmland now
mapped? Are there areas now that are
[20:01] identified as the farmland?
>> There are uh the the statewide maps
[20:08] which are I believe part of the the
comprehensive plan that maps prime
[20:12] farmland and farmland of statewide
importance.
[20:16] Um, so those resources, um, I believe
you can find them online on the USDA
[20:23] website,
although I think, um,
[20:28] they
they they sort of show more general
[20:32] areas in the city,
[20:36] I raised that question because I think
that, you know, the
[20:42] an established farm is probably not
going to be the applicant for a solar
[20:47] farm. So I think the solar uh entity
farm entity would have to supply or
[20:56] provide an application anyway. So I
think that it would still need to be
[21:01] reviewed by the planning board to be
sure that they through the special
[21:06] exception process it that would you know
have to be proved that that particular
[21:12] area is truly been uh compromised by
PAS.
[21:19] » Yeah. So I think um for solar projects
that go to the pling board, the
[21:24] applicant um we could include a standard
saying the applicant needs to
[21:29] demonstrate,
you know, whether there has been in the
[21:32] past contamination of POS. And I'm not
sure if the soil scientist would find
[21:37] that out or if the developer would know
from the history of the site. Um but
[21:42] that certainly can be language that we
include in here as well.
[21:47] Any
[21:53] other questions? Okay.
>> Uh
[21:57] so uh I mean just I guess kind of a
broader question. Uh
[22:04] what kind of
initiated like the whole process from at
[22:10] least that perspective of needing you
know ordinance change particularly to
[22:15] the a zone. Um just in general
>> I think um generally there was concern
[22:22] about increased development in the a
zone especially with solar projects. Um,
[22:27] initially there was talk of having a
moratorum on all solar in the a zone.
[22:33] And so I think this is a way to to defer
a lot to the USDA and the state um in
[22:41] terms of definitions of prime farmland
and farmland of statewide importance and
[22:44] be a little bit more specific and then
just have stricter protections in place
[22:49] and more clear language in place. Um uh
cuz right now it's it's for homes, you
[22:56] know, avoid being cited on essential
habitat and soils is kind of vague. Um
[23:02] but that's broadly speaking the reason
why they wanted to do these changes.
[23:09] Yeah, I'm just uh I know looking at it
from a bird's eye view that uh of course
[23:15] the city's going through its comp plan
uh and updating that in terms of
[23:19] community input of what the people of
the city want their the city to look
[23:24] like. And um yeah, I just think you know
it seems a little more reactionary in
[23:32] terms of something that an issue that
really I don't really see necessarily. I
[23:36] know that we had a project a couple
months ago, a couple months back where
[23:40] we uh it was prime I mean it was stated
as prime farmland of statewide
[23:46] significance and they ended up putting
that solar far solar array there and
[23:50] they were renewing their uh approval
from the planning board and uh and I
[23:56] could see in that particular instance
like there's a need for restricting the
[24:00] type of development that happens out in
farmland and in the egg zone. So, uh, I
[24:06] just think that in terms of like
comments for the city council, they
[24:10] really do have to try to strike that
balance of,
[24:14] you know, resource protection, what the
a zone was meant to be for, like
[24:18] protecting our natural resources,
protecting our heritage industries, but
[24:22] at the same time not do it in a way that
stifles,
[24:26] you know, the potential of Auburn's
growth. That makes sense. And I don't
[24:29] know if people in the board share that
opinion, but uh I think that's a very,
[24:35] you know, fine balance to to walk
>> in terms of this ordinance.
[24:41] You know, I think it it does it pushes
Auburn in one direction and and and
[24:45] doesn't really do balance to it. That
makes sense. Mhm.
[24:52] » Actually in a way
u allowing soft farms on some farmland
[25:01] is actually helping the sustainability
of some farms. U again I if there are
[25:08] some marginal areas that can't truly be
farmed. farming industry you know uh is
[25:16] a difficult industry. So solar farm uh
does provide an income to a farm
[25:24] activity which might uh maintain that
activity on land uh contingent to the
[25:32] solar farm. So I think that you're right
there needs to be a balance. We don't
[25:37] want to infringe upon the true usable
farmland, but farmland for solar farm
[25:44] use is helpful to the farm farm industry
as well.
[25:54] Any other questions or points for
discussion?
[26:00] Okay. Are you seeking a motion from the
planning board or are you just gathering
[26:05] our thoughts and comments to take back
to the city council?
[26:09] » Um, I'm not seeking a vote tonight. I
think we're just taking comments. Um, so
[26:16] if the board has any, I guess, final
statements on their sort of endorsement
[26:22] or support of the changes or any
comments we should incorporate as we
[26:26] take it to the council, I would make a
note of that as well. Um, but you can
[26:30] make a motion to authorize it to go to
the council with pending comments from
[26:36] both SNRB and the planning board. That'd
be my suggestion.
[26:40] » Okay.
>> Anyone like to make a motion?
[26:45] » To me, that was well stated. I would put
that into writing and I would uh suggest
[26:51] that as a motion
[26:55] I'd like to include. Um
a recommendation to city council to
[27:02] include provisions per feet po for PAS
contaminated soils and how those are to
[27:10] be handled in reference to these
proposed revisions.
[27:15] » Bob, would you like to amend your motion
to include that?
[27:18] » Accept that language as well. Thank you.
>> Do we have a second?
[27:23] » Second. All those in favor?
Motion carries.
[27:30] All right. Uh that brings us to the
public comment section of our agenda. If
[27:36] any members of the public would like to
comment, uh please come up to the
[27:40] podium, state your name and address, and
you will have five minutes.
[27:45] » It's your time, Steve.
>> What I had to say
[27:51] more of your time.
>> All right. Uh, miscellaneous. Does
[27:55] anyone have anything they want to
discuss?
[28:04] out of t Tuesday night's meeting
sustainability
[28:10] it was a good discussion and we were
presented uh by the comprehensive
[28:16] planning committee uh a a preview of
what might come before us
[28:26] we all should spend some time and go to
review some of the topics that have been
[28:33] discussed USS
you know I think because of some state
[28:38] directives we're really looking at the
identification of low growth modic
[28:44] growth high growth
uh
[28:48] and the high growth is indicated in red
there's some major areas that are in red
[28:56] that are uh uh I think need to be
scrutinized so I think that this will be
[29:04] going to the public. There'll be some
public sessions uh you know individually
[29:09] we may want to speak but this will be
coming to the planning board for then uh
[29:15] public hearing.
So I think we all need to kind of come
[29:20] up to speed and uh take a very careful
look.
[29:27] » Thank you. Well,
>> yeah. Uh I just wanted staff uh for some
[29:33] of the questions that at least the board
had if you could go back to council with
[29:39] those like u terms of I think I asked
for like a percentage. I mean
[29:43] justformational kind of thing. I mean,
I'm sure the council will do their
[29:47] homework, but um to really like I think
it was the percentage of what percentage
[29:53] of the a zone is
is prime farmland of statewide
[29:57] significance and how how how will it
affect um how it will affect them? So,
[30:02] » yeah, I can definitely bring that to
council.
[30:08] » Anyone else?
All right. Seeing none, I will seek a
[30:13] motion to adjurnn.
>> So moved.
[30:17] » Second. All
>> in favor?