[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?

City of Auburn, Maine, Planning Board Meeting, February 19, 2026

Transcript