Planning Board - Regular Meeting

I'm the acting chair of the board uh this evening. Uh we will work from a prepared agenda. Uh all uh full voting board members are present. Uh but we'll do a roll call for starters. If I could please our left, Bob Hayes, Bill Hussein, Riley Berseron, Ed Bara, Morin Hopkins, Tim D. Ro, Andrea Westby.

Thank you. Uh first item of uh business is the acceptance of the minutes of December 9, 2025. Board members had an opportunity to review the minutes. We have any uh motions or proposed changes to the minutes? Entertain a motion. I move to accept the minutes. Second.

Bel move to accept. Marine seconded. All in favor? opposed. Unanimous. Uh we can uh we can continue with the agenda as prepared. Although the uh first applicant just walked through the door. Are you uh prepared to proceed at this point? Okay. Uh very good. Uh the next item on our agenda is a public hearing site plan review subdivision review 15 Academy Street. uh application by Gorl Palmer on behalf of the town of a excuse me Auburn Town Center Apartments LLC for final approval the construction of a 53 unit residential development. This property is located in the traditional downtown neighborhood T-4.2 district and will be reviewed under chapter 60 article 16 division 2 site plan review and division 4 subdivision. Um this has been uh uh noticed as a public hearing as I understand it. Staff,

this is correct. Okay. Uh very good. Uh the way that we proceed when we review applications is to have a uh a brief overview uh from staff with any questions that board members may have of staff. Uh then an applicant to more fully present the application to us again with uh uh questions or comments from staff and then it will be open for the public. So, at this point, I'd ask for any staff uh review of this application.

Um, thank you. So this was an item that was continued from the December 9th meeting and at that meeting the board granted preliminary approval with a few conditions and a few of those were in regards to uh the off streetet parking arrangement site distance and then um the building with waiver which um the board should act on tonight. Um it's a public hearing. Um, so, um, typically there's, uh, typically public hearings are voting meetings unless there's an agreed upon timeline by the board and the applicant if there are more things that need to be submitted. But based on the applicant's correspondence with the police department, um, it seems like the department has no other needs in in regards to the off- streetet parking arrangement and sight distance. So, the one item that is still needing to be addressed by the board is the waiver from building with. Um, you'll notice in the memo, the motion includes the standards for uh building with um and front setback as well and building frontages. Um, they're just requesting the waiver from building width. So the current standard is that you have a maximum of 110 feet width for buildings in the formbbased code and I believe they're proposing around 270 feet but they're proposing to break up the building um in in terms of like landscaping and and building facade undulation. So that's how they're proposing to display the building so that it is sort of broken up. Um, so

that's it. Anyone on the board have any Yes, Eric. I just want to note for the record, we have one board member here that was not here for the uh preliminary meeting. Uh, Andrea Westby. Um, and I think she would like to just explain what she's done to prepare so she can act as a full member tonight. Fair enough. Thank you very much for the reminder. Andrea, have you had a chance to review this application and the earlier video? Yes, I've reviewed the submitted um materials and I did review the video of last month's board meeting. Do you feel you're prepared to act on this? I do. Thank you. Any board member have any questions for staff regarding this final uh subdivision and site plan review?

Moren, yes. I don't have it right in front of me. Could you point me to the section of the zoning code that addresses the criteria for a waiver? There's uh there's two sections. One refers to the other. Um, waiver requests within the formbbased code are under section 60- 558 C uh, waiver requests. Thank you.

And then that refers you back to the objectives of site plan review as the criteria that are used in measuring the request. While Marine looks at that, are there any other board members with questions regarding this application? Hello. Hello.

Yeah. So, uh, reviewing the emails with the police department in regards to the on street parking. So, what was the final determination? Was it the fact that the applicant can't move forward with getting rid of parking spaces or is it not a determination yet for the city to do?

I think it was um in the email the department said had no additional needs. I believe there was space for parking on Main Street Shripping at some point that was taken away. Um but their basic their response was that um they would defer to the city if there were any changes but at this point they said that it was fine. Okay. So I guess my question was will they move forward with taking off streetet parking for the development or will they not do it?

I think summer. Um there was a road uh repaving project that happened this summer. Um so when we first started talking with this applicant, there was on street parking striped in that area. Um that was in question. DOT's road project that happened this summer uh changed the configuration of the striping and there is not currently parking striped in the area that was in question. Um we are talking to the state about why um some of those changes were made and we may look at bringing back parking but we wouldn't be able to bring back parking in that section because it would create a a sight distance issue. Um I don't know what the outcome of that will be. um whether or not some on street parking will be b brought back along Main Street, but currently there is no on street parking striped in the spot. That was a concern.

Well, I had a similar question. Um because if I understood the the application materials, a vehicle parked along Main Street would obstruct the view of someone leaving uh this project. uh and accessing Main Street. And as I understand it, right now there's no prohibition on parking on Main Street. So, I'll start with that. Is there any prohibition on parking on Main Street?

I don't believe that there's parking prohibited signs, but that's something that the board could certainly require um as part of a a review. Um there's just no parking spaces striped on that section of Main Street and the um the shoulder is not wide enough to be a legal parking space. Not to say that somebody might not try to park there. So signage may be a good good option. Well, if the shoulder is not wide enough for parking, then is it fair to say that that we could expect the city to take steps to prohibit parking along the street? Or is because that seems to be an open question uh to me and it we're we're being asked to approve a project where I at least my understanding of the application is that there's an obstruction to a viewing to the left as you leave this project. And the city uh police department, again, as I understand the email exchanges, is saying, "Well, we we don't we don't really have an opinion." Uh if anything's going to change, it's going to come from city administration. Um so, I guess where does that leave us as a board? Because well, parking is not prohibited. what I'm hearing you say [clears throat] and and I appreciate knowing this now that um it's it's it's inadequate for for parking. So, I'd have to assume that it won't be allowed. But is that a reasonable assumption?

Yeah, the way that I read that email exchange was that the administration would have to decide if they wanted to bring back parking in that area. But I do think it's possible for somebody to park there even though the shoulder is not wide enough and maybe no parking signs. I would say that would be a responsibility of the applicant if this project is driving the need a safety concern for that. But that could be a condition of the board. I guess what would the condition be? The applicant can't force the city to make a change to the uh to the parking arrangement. So barring some action by an entity outside of the the applicant's control, how can we make it a condition that the applicant abides by? I I think that if the if there's a concern that somebody will park there even though the shoulder is not wide enough and that it does create a sight distance issue for somebody pulling out of this driveway. Um the board could require um an offsite improvement that they work with the city engineer to make it clear that there's no parking in that in that area.

But we'd have to work with the city engineer and public works on that. I would I would hate to think that the project wouldn't go forward because of what I view as kind of a minor issue, but I'm not clear on what it means to work with the city engineer or if the city engineer and the applicant don't come to an agreement that prohibits parking because that would be the only way to to obviate the existing deficiency which as I understand it is when you look left, you can't see beyond the park vehicle or through the parked vehicle. Maybe the applicant has something to say about that. Any other questions for staff? [clears throat and cough] See none. The applicant like to make any presentation?

Uh, sure. Uh, Mr. chairman, members of the board. Uh my name is Caleb Barasa with Goral Palmer. I've been before you a few times at this point and then last was December 9th. So um I have again up with me a handful of slides. Uh includes some of my site plans if there's any any [clears throat] specific questions to go back to in that regard. But um ultimately um the the final items for discussion were were basically the the parking on street item to discuss and then uh the building waiverss. And I can't recall if there was um there was something else there. I note Sam there was a clarification that we're only looking for the building width waiver. Um if you go to the next slide, I think there was really only a couple others to touch on there. So those clarifications and then the offsite I think was still lifted uh listed in the staff memo. Um but I believe that was handled um right prior to that December 9th meeting. that we had provided with you all in our last iteration. Um stuff to go along with the off-site parking that we're meeting those additional 15 spaces there. So um I I think to go into the offsite or the site distance issue at the driveway, I think from a from a um base level, my my understanding of it was that it was one a temporary issue if if there's somebody that's parking on street. I I'm understanding that um with the restriping that was done along the road that it's kind of in question if there could be or is allowed any on street parking and then as you'd seen in the emails with um with the city police department there was kind of a um some somewhat of an acknowledgement but that yeah somebody else would have to kind of make the decision in the administration level as to do we want to actually um deregulate ate, you know, on street parking there. Um, [clears throat and cough] from my perspective, um, just from the engineering point of view and the safety

point of view, um, there are driveways all along Main Street. So, this is not a new condition. And the location of this very driveway is the exact location, if not slightly shifted off center, uh, by maybe a foot or two of where the current driveway is. Now, um actually if you go Sam to the next go one more. I think I have an aerial view. Hard to tell in this but um and if you zoom in it might be a little bit more pixelated but just to the top of the page to the north of our driveway is another driveway. So, it's not as as if there's this is a situation where right directly next to um our driveway would be another on street parking space or a car uh ultimately parked there. Um I think it's if anything a slight conflict um that was notified and if anything that might also have to conflict with maybe the Elm Street um intersection there too. Um but if you're utilizing um just to take a step back when you do the sight distance calculations or that or that um measurement I should say it's taken 10 ft back from the edge of the travel way puts you into the driveway beyond what the actual shoulder would be and then it's measured 3 and 1/2 ft off of the ground. And so, um, when you're doing that, it can be understandable that, um, yes, there might be a conflict in that sense, but, um, no different than if you're pulling out of a driveway and there's a car there or maybe there's some, um, vegetation that's starting to kind of encroach into that line of sight. You're going to use what you have for space to start to pull forward a little bit, which would be no different for than a lot of these driveways um, on Main Street, too. So I think that just from just just thinking about a little bit more at the base level um how I view this from the engineering point of view and and where the safety comes into that I don't think that this is necessarily an unsafe condition it's an existing condition um and u to the point of

should the board direct us or staff to pursue um removing any doubt that there could be on street parking there um from the beginning I think we're certainly open to you know whatever ever option there could be there. Um I don't necessarily view it as really as an issue um at that base level. So, um I [clears throat] would like to say that, you know, in our opinion, there really shouldn't be any action taken. Um but wanted to at least kind of explain that much as to how I'm viewing that too, um for the board's consideration and can discuss further with, you know, with staff here too as to what that, you know, that uh course of action should be if there if there was to be one. But um um I I think that it's a it's a scenario where um it's notified. Uh it's been acknowledged. We've talked it through, but I don't think that any action really should be taken uh on that on that item. Other than that, I I I figure we might just talk through that item a little bit and then happy to talk about the waiver item, too. Um if the if the board would like [snorts]

I did have one question for you that isn't a waiver item and it's and it's not about the access uh issue. Um the staff report says that uh under access will be from Main Street via the shared driveway and parking area with existing town houses at Main Street and Academy. Necessary easements and agreements for site reconfiguration have been negotiated. Final easements will be executed upon site and subdivision approval. So, have you reached a final agreement with whoever needs to provide you with this access easement?

So, we have the drafts of those documents prepared. Um but wanted to just make sure that again if you're it takes a lot of time to um write up those documents because they also pertain to um full descriptions of you know meets and bounds of the actual limits of the easement areas. So we have those drafted up um with exhibits based on um plans that we've prepared. Uh but we didn't want to execute and record those if they if uh the board had perhaps a comment on maybe the parking configuration or something that would just affect um those access easements. So we didn't want to do that just because it would be a little bit of an iterative process. Obviously takes a lot of time um and then um uh resources just to just to do that twice. So uh the drafts have been prepared and I believe provided um and um hoping that the board had reviewed that and uh found that to be acceptable. Well, won't those easements need to be shown on a plan? And are doesn't this board need to approve the plan?

Correct. Those are shown on the subdivision plan as well. Well, if they're shown on the plan, have they have they been agreed to by the other party? Yes. Yes. Okay. Yes. Yeah. And that's what I mean to say. I think I probably gloss over when I say draft. Um all of those um individual owners because there actually isn't a a um like an association board with that. So um the applicant actually has met with each of the individual owners uh for all those town houses and and come to um agreements on those. So um but it was agreed upon that we'll wait to execute them just until after we we get our approvals from you folks.

Thank you. Y I have a question for the applicant. Mr. Barasa, is that correct? Yes. Okay. Could you take a moment and point out to me and whoever might else might be watching on that diagram the driveway that you're speaking of the access point. Can you go up there and point out that access point, please? Yes.

All right. And the easement parking area is the box with the dotted line. Correct. Correct. Y All right. Staff, do you have an overlay or something that doesn't show the vegetation as well where we can have a better view of that existing driveway? Yeah. Yeah. The site plan should be a site plan and and GPS overlay or something. So that's that's the site plan, correct?

What variations does the site plan I've I've seen so many things here. I'm having a hard time finding exactly the answer I want. The site plan that I'm looking at, how and where does that differ from the existing driveway entrance? Correct. Uh Sam, if you could just go back one more slide just between the existing conditions and this and this plan. So, um without being able to really scale this to the next sheet. Uh so, you know, now that I'm actually looking at this here, uh perhaps u closer to 8 to 10 ft perhaps offset from what we have here. Has the width increased, decreased, or stayed the same?

The width should be the same. It's 24 feet. So, 24 foot entrance, which is pre-existing, and it's shifted about 10 ft. Is that accurate? Correct. Southerntherly. Southerntherly. Thank you. Yep. Which in turn would uh probably help to alleviate um you know, the issues perhaps if the site distance that was recorded might might have been a little bit different. Yep. You answered what I needed. Thank you. Maybe just as a followup, with that offset now [clears throat] in the increased uh distance from the other driveway that you speak of, would that allow a vehicle to park between those two driveways?

It should not. Uh it should not. No. U what you see here, but I would assume that So, um you have less than a parking stall uh to be able to fit into that without encroaching into the radius for both of those driveways. So although the site plan shows parking parallel to the street, you're saying that nobody could park on the street in that same

Yes. Yes. Correct. And I think what I'll just note is that again we're talking about um there was some DOT work that you know was undertaken here recently. So this survey obviously predates the DOT work. So,

any other questions for the applicant? Anything further? Did you want to talk about the waiverss? Any?

Uh, yes. Yeah, would love to talk a little bit more about the waiverss. Um, I think, uh, I could certainly just reiterate, Sam, if you, if you would go to the rendering that we had in there. Um, so just to go back what we had talked about. Um, going back to our October submission, we had originally submitted and and were anticipating requesting, I think, four uh four waivers. We had one, two, three, I believe four waivers and we worked with staff, got that down to just the one. So, there was a setback issue. We had there was some amount of um open facade that didn't have um u openings or windows within it. Um so a number of those items that we've [clears throat]

um since revised the architectural and the civil plans uh and have worked on that to just uh avoid any any such waivers. So now back to the final element which is the standard in the form based code for the building width requirement. Now, this lot, as we've mentioned, um is u not a standard lot in this traditional neighborhood district. And so, um it's probably one of the largest lots in in the district, which makes it kind of unique. And I think that the formbbased code, as you start to read through it, um this lot might not fall into that mold. And I think one example I would say would be that there's uh as that standard is written out, it says the maximum would be 110 ft um or 60% of the [clears throat] lot. And um if you take 60% of the lot, it would be greater than the 110 ft. So there's a little bit um of back and forth um just with the sheer frontage that we have across the lot. Now when you talk about how do we take that and view the formbbased code and try to come up with a design that really meets the intent of the formbbased code. Um, I think that this this rendering really does a lot of justice to what we're really trying to do here, which is the intent being forming and keeping a street wall here that is a walkable kind of livable neighborhood. So, within all of these, although this is a multif family building, all of these ground floor units have their own access directly onto the street, they have stoops um that are all kind of written in following how the code kind of follows there. Um, so you have all of these kind of openings into it. You have several of the s towers as well. Uh and then um uh some pedestrian paths just um for the residents and guests on each end of the building. Then you talk about the the vertical and horizontal elements of the building as well. So obviously there's a lot of grade on Academy Street as you trend down um the hillside here. So there's effectively eight steps in the building foundation that start to

break up vertically uh this building here too and kind of start to match what you would see um as you're kind of going along on some of these other streets and in the downtown. Um then on the horizontal plane of the building um with all of these um these units here there's a step or a break in that um that horizontal face uh about every 10 to 12 feet. I think it's a little bit longer perhaps on the very ends of the building, but um a lot of break up, a lot of architectural functions in this building that I think really um we're really looking, we've read it very thoroughly and and we're trying to meet the intent of what this uh traditional neighborhood wants to be in this field that um really can be um very kind of fluid for people um walking in and out of the building. Um so various access points as I mentioned with um uh three I believe stair towers that are shown in the brick so folks can walk in through any point on one of those or ends of the buildings. There's a double loaded corridor inside as well so someone could enter from each end and get around through here. So I think we're trying to maintain this fluidity uh of easy access for folks using it. Um, and then I think just the the vertical and horizontal elements as I mentioned here too. I think that really kind of um speaks to how how the intent of the code really really was to be. So um that was what I wanted to just reiterate um what our thoughts were. We didn't really talk much in the last meeting about it, but wanted to mention as much and then really from there just wanted to have the discussion with the board and if there was any other questions, anything that we might be able to answer or provide for you.

Thank you. So, normally I don't believe anyway we would have much to say about the [clears throat] facade of the building um in terms of the different textures that you're proposing to use. But since your waiver request seems highly dependent on the design that you're showing us and the different colors help to break up the building, what assurance do we have that when you build the building, it's going to look like that? Correct. Uh and I know we talked about this. That was actually one of the um I think one of the public comments from perhaps the December or was it the November meeting that we had. Yeah. So, um this is this is fairly well um um set in stone at this point. So, there there are no we're we're intending that everything that we're showing here to you folks for materials and colors um in here um that is going to be what it is. So, if if there were to be changes, that would be something that we would have have to come back to the planning board uh to review.

Thank you. Any [clears throat] other questions of the applicants? Yes. Just one quick question. Um, you said that the uh the lot it would be more than 110 ft. If it were 60% of the lot line, what would that distance be? I believe I have that number. The number was 180 ft. If we were to do 60% of the lot. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. At this point, we will move to our public hearing on a motion to do so. Do I hear a motion? So moved. Seconded.

Moved and seconded. Um uh the public hearing will be open. We don't go in any particular order, pro or con. Uh so feel free to approach the podium. Uh our rules do limit your com comments to 5 minutes and I guess I'm the one who keeps track of that. So public hearing is open. [clears throat] Uh good evening. My name is John Cleveland. I live at 183 Davis Avenue in Auburn. Um, I rise to speak to one item within that's in the subdivision, uh, excuse me, the site plan review requirements, a mandatory requirement that I think is important, and that specifically deals with the requirement that the applicant submit um, evidence or submit documents that show their financial capacity and their technical capacity to undertake the project. reviewing this, I think you will recall we're talking about a project here that's in excess of $10 million. This is a large project. I've gone through it. I've only been able to find one letter and [clears throat] there's hundreds of pages in here. So, if I may have missed it, I'll stand corrected, but I'll go by what I know is in the application. And this is for Main Community Bank. Uh this is a letter dated November the 5th, 2023. That's more than two years ago. And in that um letter, what it essentially says is that um Mr. Leonard uh and Dr. Cece's um [clears throat] are customers of Maine Community Bank and they have commercial accounts at Maine Community Bank there and they've been customers

for a period of time. Um the letter doesn't say anything about their financial capacity to undertake a project of this kind. Simply being a customer and um making your payments as they're required doesn't necessarily mean you have the total capacity. The letter also does not say that the bank is committed to providing capital for this project um at all. So, we don't know whether or not they can or cannot do it. And of course, it's a two-year-old project. Secondly, it says nothing about the capacities of those two gentlemen or the LLC that um is the applicant here. Uh whether they built a project of this nature, what their success has been in the past, what they bring for their skills um in doing and undertaking and successfully completing a project of this scale and magnitude. So I would suggest number one that you think whether or not this actually meets the requirement as required under the ordinance to show financial capacity and their technical ability to do it. Second point um this approval is only for this applicant. I would say that the board should make it very clear on this applicant that it is if anyone any other entity other than this applicant chooses to do this application or do this project that they should have to come back and show their financial capacity and technical capacity to meet all of the requirements that you've talked about here. So I would leave those two points with you and wish you would consider them before you take any final action. Thank you, Mr. Cleveland.

My name is Ron Russell. I uh have the property that adjoins uh on Elm Street, our back of our house, faces the parking lot. We've lived there for 50 years, my wife and I, and uh uh we've uh watched the the uh uh general growth of the neighborhood. It's been a historic area. I know the the problems um that we've seen in the last uh probably oh 6 months to a year with uh traffic. It's it's gotten to the point where it's backed up. I notice uh on this particular property uh they have an excess uh an exit on Main Street um where there's a lot of backup traffic. Uh it's a little bit dangerous. Uh we've had accidents uh in our block for a number of years. They finally got one section of it with some signs, but the main traffic that comes down um comes down Elm Street and makes a left. It does quite a bit. It backs up. The property that you have um are looking at is going to be facing a lot of traffic is going to go to the north. There's a 24,000 cars a day that run up and down uh to Turner. Um and of course on the other direction, you know, there's all the traffic that uh you know, at the light. I'm sure there's not a a chance of putting another traffic light there. So, the traffic is is is a real issue. Um another thing is the uh parking, which we've been talking about. I just don't think that the area supports that much parking and that much activity. They have a uh a reason for the 110 ft limitation for that size property. Uh they're trying to

shoehorn something in here that's just too much for the area. Uh too many people. Um, and of course, um, the property itself, we've got no guarantees that it's going to look like that. You know, it can morph into a real abortion, if I can use that word. Uh, my wife and I have both been against uh any development like that. It just monopolizes the street. It's not it it just doesn't fit. Uh the reason that they put 110 ft limitation that you're trying to that they're trying to have you approve 217 ft um is uh it's there for a reason. And before you approve that kind of a of a of a change and a an exception to this, I think you ought to think, you know, clearly on this because this building will be around forever and it doesn't necessarily have to look like this. Uh I've canvased a little bit of the neighborhood uh prior to this. We didn't have a lot of warning. Uh we only had a couple of months before when we found out about this project. My wife and I and uh uh I've approached a couple of neighbors and I can tell you that they're uh u generally opposed. Um I would like to have more time to be able to canvas the neighborhood. I haven't been busy the last three weeks. My wife has passed away yesterday. So, uh uh I would like you to go ahead and seriously consider thinking about this because it's going to affect the downtown for quite a while. And uh I'm happy to see that there's some new faces here because I'm a little bit concerned about the the the way this project was brought up and uh how it came approved by the last administration. Um the property values I

I'm under the impression the city paid over 100,000. I was asking about pro uh uh purchasing this to keep it you know to keep it uh empty from the telephone company and it was over $100,000. My understanding is that the city let this go for less less than that maybe 50,000. If it was 50,000 I would have bought it and kept it as it is. you know, keeping the historic neighborhood in in the in the current condition. Thank you. Thank you.

Evans here 122 Granite Street. Before I begin, I would ask um the chair for permission to provide a document to members of the planning board. It is a nons substantive document, not an opinion document. It simply consists of excerpts of the code which are publicly available um such that I wouldn't be entering something to the uh planning board members that members of the public wouldn't also have access to. Um there's just sections of the ordinance that are pertinent to what I'm going to say. I thought it'd be easier to give you those sections rather than to ask you to flip through while I'm speaking.

I think that that's fine. I understand what you're going to hand us is simply sections of the ordinance that you want to address. Uh sections of the or I should add also uh the deed which is also included in the application. I don't have a problem with that but I'm going to ask the board if does the applicant have whatever you're about to submit. There are additional copies in the back and um absolutely we'll make sure the applicant has a copy of it. It's again I like him to have one before you start.

Uh so I'll [clears throat] preface my comments uh again Evans here 122 Grand Street. I'll preface my comments by stating that I'm neither for nor against um the project. I've sat on the planning board. I understand that there they can be tough decisions to make and one of the very incredibly difficult parts about the decisions is the amount of information that you have and sometimes uh the information that you don't have. And as I've been following this, I found some information that I felt pertinent that had I been sitting on the planning board, I would have uh wanted to know. And uh I can say that nothing that I'm going to say right now precludes any decision of the board or would push the board towards approval, denial or tableabling. Um it's just simply information that I think um I would I would have wanted to know had I been sitting in your seat. Um the first is that um the application is being reviewed as a site plan review and subdivision but section 60-556 under formbbased code plans um indicates that there are some projects in the formbbased code zone that should also undergo a special exception. um one of the criteria being more than 12,000 square ft of new building. Um this obviously meets that one and also uh that any project located within the formbbased code district area uh that seeks a waiver from the adopted formbbased code regulating development standards shall submit and complete special exception and site plan review application for planning board review and action. And um I say that only because I understand that one of the planning board's jobs is to indicate

whether or not they believe an application is complete before they take action. And um understanding and deciding whether the planning board members believe all parts are there as part of that. And again providing this doesn't say one way or the other what happens but um there is that uh requirement. Uh the second and this speaks to the deed that I put in. Uh if you've been following the previous deed actually had a restriction which said that the applicant was not allowed to ask for waiverss at all. Um that has been amended. You'll see the newest deed here. Um which removed that which I think was probably um smart on the part of the city to remove such a deed restriction. Um but there is sort of an odd piece left in and it's on page one, two, three. Um title number one. It's uh restrictions on the deed and it it's one project. The grantee shall construct a residential housing development consisting of a minimum of 16 market rate apartments with common space, green space, and adequate parking on the property property be property to be known as Auburn Town Center Apartments. The project um I include it only because I haven't seen it sort of highlighted. I think that the board can absolutely determine whether or not they believe that's in their purview to care whether that that's there. I think the board can determine what they think adequate parking means. It's a fairly open-ended um word. Um I bring it up only because there are some findings of fact that the board will utilize. One of them being section 60-304.

Um uh section two uh describing a written denial. Not that I'm saying there'd be denial, but in the past, anything that was written as a condition of denial was generally also used as addition as a condition of approval to say that those conditions did not exist, so we could approve. So, I'm not using that as a denial thing. I just want to be clear. Um, but it says the proposed development. Um, one reason to deny might be that the proposed development violates provisions of the zoning regulations applicable to the site or other applicable laws, regulations, or ordinances. Um, and section 60-1365. And these are all under the special exception subdivision rules that you're looking at. Um, one of the findings is that uh subdivision plan shall conform to the comprehensive plan. any proposed subdivision shall be in conformity with the comprehensive plan of the city and with the provisions of all pertinent state and local codes and ordinances. And again, I I don't bring this up to say that there's an an obvious um conclusion, just to say that had I been on the planning board, I I would have wanted that information with regard to the um to the deed. Um

you are you are approaching 9 minutes. I am approaching 9 minutes. All right. Uh well, I apologize. I've clearly taken more time um than allotted. U you've you've got the the the pertinent ordinances. Um I'll make it I I'll wrap it up by saying u there's a conflict in the ordinance with regard to how far away off-site parking can be. And so it's well within the planning board's purview to discuss which standard should be used and there are ordinances that also describe what to do when there's a conflict and it would be well within the planning board's um perview to do that. And with regard to waivers, um it sounds as though some changes to the plans have been made that uh no longer require a waiver for the 10-ft um uninterrupted wall, but the plans that were provided to the public at least don't indicate a change. So um that may be worth discussing, but I'm it may be possible that the planning board has plans that are different than what were provided. that does happen from time to time. And also there is a provision that requires residential um properties to have a a ground floor elevation 2 ft above the sidewalk or the front yard. Um which again doesn't [clears throat] seem to be the case on the elevations, but it not necessarily means that that's not the case. It's just a a discussion point that hasn't been brought up. I will close by saying thank you for allowing me to go over my time.

And uh as I said, none of this is meant to be a argument for or against in any particular direction. just to say um there were some things that when I was looking at this I said wow if I was on the board I wish that would have been involved in the um staff report just so that when we make our final decision I could have said I had all the information that I wanted. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else? Yes, ma'am. My name is Annette Loer. I've lived at uh 16 Elm Street and it's right next to uh Ron's house [snorts] and I've live lived there in that apartment house for 41 years. And um I I just don't understand the [snorts] I think when you were talking about the um the uh parking on that street. M Miss Bloer, would you address the board and then if there are questions, we'll direct them to the

Well, what I'm saying is it it when you talked about this the uh parking on the street on um on Academy, nobody does that because it's so narrow and you've got so much traffic moving back and forth. And I've seen uh the uh community uh theater and they they don't have people parking there. They have them parking along High Street, but they don't have people either one on either side of um um academy with people parking, you know. So, it's uh I can't see that happening because you got so many lanes and it's the light at the bottom of the hill. It's just not going to work.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other person wishing to speak?

Hi, my name is Janette Trembley and I live on Noun Street. Uh, when they first started talking about that, I thought, "Oh, yeah, that'd be great." I wasn't even thinking of all the parking and now it just doesn't make sense. I look out my kitchen window and Academy Street is bumper to bumper traffic all the time and then they get fed up with not being able to turn on Academy Street. So they go down Maine and they come up Elm. So Elm Street has become so busy that at times you can't even get out of your own driveway. So I don't know how this is going to work out. I mean that just doesn't make sense to me. There's no place to park. That's about all I have to say. I just don't agree with it at all. Thank you. Going once, twice, three times. Accept a motion to close the public hearing. So moved.

Second. [clears throat] Moved by Bob, second by Meen. All in favor? Would staff with the applicant care to address any concerns that the board may have uh regarding these comments? Would it be preferable that one or the other or do you want me to let whoever wants to answer the questions answer?

We can answer um whatever is best the applicant or staff on any of the questions. Um, if I remember correctly, and I know there's been some revisions, but if I remember correctly, back in November when we first saw this, the artist rendition showing Academy Street with cars parked in front of it, we were made to understand that that was an artist rendition and not an expectation that that would be used for parking. Has that changed or am I remembering incorrectly? So the on street parking is not uh we do not depend on that. Uh it was depicted as uh a potential public improvement that that could be sought um with the city but nothing that our plan necessarily depends on. Uh, so there there was a um kind of a descriptive element or illustrative element to that to that plan as well.

Yeah. I'm I'm asking on the benefit of the people who brought it up because the artist rendition does show cars parked on Academy Street, but the parking lot behind your proposal is suitable except for some to for everyone to park there, but Academy Street is not considered part of the parking for this project. Is that correct? Yes. Correct. Thank you.

Yes. And uh just further all of the on-site parking that is provided meets what is required for residents. So the additional spaces that um we have sought and have acquired uh rights to at the the village in parcels um are really for the benefit of uh guest parking. Q.

I I would ask about the um uh the letters uh regarding financial capacity. I thought we had received some revised letters. I know that we did at our last meeting from some applications. I thought this was one of them. Am I mistaken?

Yes, we had provided an additional letter. Uh I don't have that with my materials here. I'm not sure if um staff might be able to review uh but we had provided an additional letter and um seemed to be that we were in agreement that that was sufficient for what the board might need. Now um it is hard to say that there's you know typically when you go through the process to get a construction loan um you don't have the permits um right prior to that. you know, they want to know, the bank wants to know that you have a project that's permitted by the city. And so, um, the applicant has started that process and basically is right up to, um, you know, starting to order appraisals and, um, go through that element there. But, um, obviously that's nothing that gets provided with our materials here, but they've been working with me and Community Bank and had that established relationship certainly. So, uh, and have begun that process. We we do see paperwork [clears throat] across our packets from lending institutions very clearly saying this applicant has the financial capacity for this project. Those letters do exist.

Correct. For yes for for uh the means to to overcome but obviously it's not a um I think what I was more trying to say was that it's not a letter that says we will provide funding uh because sometimes that can be two different things that sometimes the banks don't want to overextend themselves in those letters as well. So, and I think we understand that and I and I think Tim Tim's point is a good one. We don't expect you to come here with a commitment letter. Yeah, sir.

But we do expect that the applicant will demonstrate his or her or its financial capacity, meaning that they either have the funds or have access to those funds. So regardless of whether they have a commitment letter or not, they should have enough of a relationship with a third party, whether it's a lender or or whomever, um that they can either access funds or have those funds. Yep. Certainly.

So that's and and I'm saying that generally so that in the future we'll we'll see that in our application packages because we've gotten a slew of letters recently that really were right not worth the paper they were written on. Along those same lines, uh could you speak to the applicants past projects and their technical capacity to complete this? Have they built buildings of the same scale before?

Uh I I can't speak to but I can speak to the team that's been assembled, which obly obviously includes us as the civil engineer um uh licensed architects, structural engineers, electrical engineers to put together this building. um you know accredited professionals certainly uh and going down through the uh contracting team as well. So there is a team in place that has already uh set up most of that uh uh to be able to provide and deliver this project.

Actually like my questions for staff uh regarding the uh [snorts] updated facade plans do uh like Mr. here indicated is the new plans facade been properly publicly noticed. It it has been in the uh the last packet um that the board had. Um we've sent public notices to all of Butters within 500 ft as well as advertised um in the Sun Journal and it's been available on the website. So yeah, I think

the this facade change is included in that. Okay. Yes, correct. Yep. Doesn't show in this rendering. We we didn't have time to update the rendering, but uh further in my slides here, I have the the elevations that have been updated. Those were provided in advance of the the December meeting.

That raises the question in my mind, then is what I'm looking at now not what you're proposing, but yet there's another rendering in the package that is your final proposed. the the rendering is is more of an illustrative plan for the board's benefit to to visualize, but we have actual uh architectural stamped uh floor plans and elevations that have been revised. And the only difference was the addition of one or two windows on the very end of the building. All all else stays the same. And I think just to reiterate too, you know, I know that was just a comment that we had heard. uh there's no intention to change anything um for uh you know the sighting materials and colors and so uh we're understanding that if there were to be any changes we would have to come back before you all to to get those approved

and and I think if I were to vote to approve this project it would be with that as a condition certainly because you're offering it. Yeah. I'm not sure that we could unilaterally impose that but you have offered it and so I'm going to if we get to that point make that a condition. Is there a plan that I can refer to if I make that a condition? Is it does that plan have a name? For example, I I would say with maybe perhaps the submitted architectural plans just with the submitted architectural plans. I I don't have the the actual names or titles of those sheets individually, but um on the on file plans.

Uh I do have a question for my for for staff. Uh Mr. Cleveland asked the uh [clears throat and cough] proposed the the raise the issue of transferability of permits. Those weren't the words he used, but I think that's what what I understand he's asking about whether it's this applicant or or any other applicant and we grant approval and we're talking about technical capacity and financial capacity now. But um if that applicant were to pedal those permits to a third party, is there any review required by the city in order for that to happen so that we know that that party has the financial capacity to carry out the project?

I don't believe there's any required review. I think the way I understand it is that if a new person were if if the property were to be sold that that new person would have to come back to demonstrate financial capacity to who? To the planning board. All right. But I think if that's a concern then it would be good to make that clear in the approval. Um, oftent times it doesn't have to come back if there's somebody else building, but I think if that's a concern with this project, you could make it a condition of approval. Thank you.

Uh, could you address uh Mr. Seir's point about the uh ground story finished floor elevation? Uh, is it a minimum of two feet? Uh the short answer is is yes, they are uh and each individual step in the building is a minimum of two feet above the sidewalk elevation. Yes.

Thank you. And would staff be able to address um whether or not they believe that this should have been reviewed as a special exception. specific This is This is

I'm just just looking at that section. I know that so far it has been reviewed as a site plan and subdivision. And I'm looking at the discretionary type plans uh listing. Um, subdivisions is one type of discretionary plan. Um, there's also a trigger for buildings over 12,000 square ft. And I think we had determined this one to be a subdivision plan. I guess there There's a question, I guess, whether or not we should also apply the special exception standards. We categorized it as a site plan and subdivision as that subdivision discretionary plan type. I think you could argue argue either way.

Is it fair to say that the project's greater than 12,000 square feet? Yes, it is.

Yes. Okay. Eric, you say that we might be able to look at it either way. It seems like it says special exception and site plan review. So, how would we look at it any other way other than and we're also doing subdivision. So, yeah, I think you could apply the special exception standard as well. And I acknowledge that that has not been been the case so far. Where would that where would that leave us procedurally? Obviously, we could continue the our current review while a special exception application is submitted. I don't think they're terribly involved applications, are they?

It's it's not a lot of additional information as compared to what you already have. It's another review of the special exception standards to explain explain how they believe the project meets it. So yeah, you could ask for that and postpone [clears throat] an action on the application and ask for that additional information.

Bob, you get your trigger finger there. I guess the only thought was are there some standards that are obvious that we are special exception standards that uh that we'd obviously need to look at that are different from the review we've already had. So there there's a lot of overlap um between the standards but

it's a lot of similar conclusions to site plan Um, so those are the conditions for special exception.

What section is that? It's uh section 60 1336.

[clears throat]

In my humble opinion, if they're Even though there may be significant overlap, we can probably say that about most of our individual review sections, whether it's site plan and subdivision or special exception, I think if the ordinance calls for a special exception approval, then I think we have to have an application that we can review and approve. And so that that's my view of it. I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise. Yeah, I think you'd want to be very specific on your findings too for that special exception review and we don't have a draft set of those prepared currently

with that.

Yes. Uh any other questions for the applicant or staff arising from the public comments that we've heard I will say that with respect to Mr. Seir's comment about the the deed restriction I I'm comfortable that although the restriction And the deed says that property shall be developed with adequate parking on the property. I think the ordinance provides for off offsite parking. So I I don't think that this deed prohibits the use of off- streetet parking to meet that standard. And did did did someone ask the question about the renderings and whether there's a the Mr. Seir had raised a question about an elevation of two feet?

Yes, correct. That is that is something that is I think a lot of the the board members we had our package of materials from November and December and we were given a smaller package at this meeting and breathe the side relief and came to the meeting with that package and so we don't have all of the materials in front of us tonight that we would have had in November like that. No, no, you can keep it.

Yes, I I I would agree, Mr. Chairman. And I I believe that uh in our original submission for October, I think we had provided um like a line by line of the formbbased code requirements. So probably that would be like the only written kind of evidence that we've provided uh potentially to kind of go along with that. But um just a check of the grading plans that are provided to um would just show that we we've certainly met that. I do recall reviewing that personally. [clears throat] Well, if there are no further questions. Yes.

So, I have a question. Uh the materials that Mr. Steer had given uh the deed or the newer updated deed. So, is it safe to assume that the section regarding the um that this housing development consisting of a minimum of 16 market rate apartments, do you I mean is the plan for these to be fully all market rate as well? Yes, correct. Okay.

Just as a side note, um I took the liberty of looking at the original packet that she hap happened to have with her and Mr. Seir brings up a valid point. The deed in our original packet is dated March 20. The deed Mr. Seir provided is dated November 3rd. Um it'd be really I I think it it's the board should be aware of deed changes and if there are updates, changes, provisions, revisions, whatever to a quick claim deed, um we should know about it. especially through the procedure of either denying or approving something. The fact that there was a deed change that wasn't brought to our attention. That's that's I can see Mr. Sears's point with that.

Yeah, it should have been in your packet, but I can double check to see if it is in the online packet. Yes, I I believe that was resubmitted prior to the December meeting as well. It absolutely should be part of your packet though. Agreed. and agree. All right.

What's the board's pleasure? I' like I'd like to say I appreciate [clears throat] going from reducing the number of waiverss being sought. Um, and I would be comfortable with granting the waiver they're asking for. The one question I have is whether or not we should uh review it under special exception. That'd be my only pause. I think the language of the the ordinance is pretty specific and that uh any proposal of 12,000 square ft or more of new construction should be reviewed as a special exception and a site plan. Um so I think it would be in everyone's best interest for us to follow that and uh ask the applicant to provide the materials that are required by a special exception application. I'd be inclined to agree with Moren and I'd be further inclined to uh want to continue our final review of the subdivision and site plan review and combine our ultimate decision with the special exception review which I think we can probably plan to do in the next month or two. at the applicant, they think that they can file something that we can get eyes on by March.

Yes, certainly. I think depending on on the board's agendas upcoming, uh we would we'd certainly be motivated to turn around as soon as possible

would be would be the idea. So, um if it would be sooner than March, that would certainly be uh in in our best interest, I think. But um so in going along with that, I think that we can certainly put together um something for the special exception. We we'll review that with staff. Certainly there's overlap. So a lot of the same information um in some areas probably just to kind of resubmit. Happy to get that along. Um uh I I think that's kind of where I left it. I think the only um item it sounds like the board wants to wait for final vote for subdivision site in that. wasn't sure if there was any other discussion the board wanted to have perhaps on the waiver. I just wanted to make sure that we have we've at least kind of covered most of the other items too just going into a final meeting with you all.

Not just the waiver but the financial ability letter as well. Sure. Can

I just add a few things? So special exceptions, there's a lot of overlap already with what's required for site plan. So really, I believe the only things you would be looking for would be whether it meets those conclusions of law in section 60 1336 in regards to neighborhood character, traffic, um that it meets uh all the specific requirements for special exception, that it's not going to alter the the character of the neighborhood. A lot of these would be addressed in site plan. Um the second thing is that this this project got preliminary approval at the last meeting. It's here for final plan a public hearing. So there is a timeline. If the board is not going to agree to vote on the final plan tonight, there has to be a reason as to why and what else needs to be submitted. And the applicant has to agree to that timeline. if you do extend the timeline. So, just want to uh reiterate that.

Well, let me ask the applicant if he's going to uh uh have any objection to us continuing our uh review of the site plan and subdivision review applications along with the while we wait for the special exception. I think uh as far as you know our goal to get you know all approvals in hand um I think if we're not able to and we need to get approval for the special exception I I don't think that there's much else we can take exception to um from you all. I don't know if there's any um approval with condition that we return for special exception or something that we could we could do. Um I I would certainly appreciate um you know your your votes um on on the site and subdivision aspects, but I I can understand that if we if we still need a separate vote, we need to return to you. Um that that might need to be the case, too. So I would prefer that that we take it all up at once and make our determination. If the special exception review requires a public hearing, comments will be limited at that public hearing to what is the subdiv the uh special exception review criteria. We won't be delving into subdivision or site plan.

Sure. Um to the extent that there's overlap, there's overlap, we can't really address that, but uh um I think otherwise you're also then subjected to the possibility of various uh appeal periods running. You might have one that runs starting tonight, one starts running in 30 days. So, you're not going to have your your final approvals, so to speak. Sure. Right. Right. Tied to the special exception. Yep.

And I don't know what restrictions we're under. It seems to me if we continue a hearing, we continue a hearing. Um I don't know. Uh planning department may be right about that. But with the applicant's consent, um I'm going to urge that we continue this review until we reconvene to review the site special.

Yeah, you would have to agree upon you'd have to agree upon a timeline for if you're going to continue this beyond the public hearing tonight. I would also suggest if um if the board feels that there is sufficient information provided for that waiver request from the building with that the board act on that tonight to move um that waiver forward. would uh determining like a date certain be the suffice as setting a timeline if we were if we were to continue the review to a date certain of next I don't know what the agenda next month looks like or what but if we were to be able to determine a date would that appease the uh requirement

yes yeah you can continue it to the next the February meeting, but that that date has to be agreed upon by both the board and the applicant. I would recommend that you handle all three of the criteria as you know, you'll have the benefit of a public hearing on the special exception criteria. Um, and you vote on site plan, subdivision, and special exception criteria in the same night at that potentially at that February meeting. And hopefully the applicant is uh is open to that happening at the the next meeting or at the March meeting if they need more time to put that together.

Are we comfortable on voting on the waiver tonight? I

mean, I I do have some discussion points around the waiver um that I'd like to bring up to the board. Um I have three numbers written down in front of I have 110 ft, 180 ft, and 276 ft. 110 ft is what they're allowed under the ordinance or 60%. Which would be 180 ft. Um, I can understand an argument for something near 180 ft or maybe even a little bit bigger than that, but we're talking about exceeding the allowable width by uh over 90 feet. Um, and that's assuming we take the 60% number. If we look at the formbbased code for the zone, um it's characterized by small to medium-sized buildings, this seems like um it's kind of an excessive waiver request uh based on the character of the neighborhood. I guess just as a thought with respect to the uh the building and the width, there's been some concern about just having one entrance access point that uh you know if we're not to grant the waiver and we had to pull back the frontage would that allow for you know a second access point and I guess you know along with that too is of course that uh has a big impact upon

[clears throat] again the finances of this whole project. So uh so I guess some discussion along the need for a second access point uh and I think that's probably one reason for res you know some restriction on the use of the of the full frontage and when you're discussing uh access you mean access as a means of like vehicular access into the property. Exactly.

Instead of putting all the traffic through the one uh entrance onto Main Street, uh could there be a access point off academy? Uh I think there certainly could have been. Um I don't know that there's anything um in the ordinance that that restricts having two points of access into the property. I think for the size of the development being 53 units, um, one one two-way access point in and out of the property is is certainly sufficient. Um, and uh, it being a a um, I think between Main Street and Academy Street. Uh, we've done our traffic analysis, understand that there's no capacity issues um, at our start driveway or at Maine and Academy or uh, Maine and Elm um, to that extent. Um only other difference I would say with that would be that just access conditions onto academy other than perhaps the very end um in the west end of that site u there is the grade change which which is hard and and makes for kind of um not necessarily inadequate but not ideal um access conditions just with that amount of grade.

Yeah. And I I certainly wouldn't presume to tell the applicant how they should design their their traffic. Um especially not when we're talking about the waiver, which is, you know, a very limited scope here. I guess my concern is that if we go by the 110 ft, we're exceeding it by 166 ft. And if we go by 180 ft or 60%, we're exceeding it by 96 feet, which seems wildly out of character with a neighborhood that is small and medium-sized homes. I think that's my only point. not not speaking to access, parking, traffic, uh but just looking at it in relation to the building design and the um characteristics of the T-4.2 location. I I can understand um concern about the the bulk or size of this building, but the building across the street, the where the old school building is a pretty big building. The rogue block is not far away and it's probably bigger than this building. I did I agree entirely that the formbbased code uses words like small and mediumsiz buildings and that I have a hard time reconciling those words uh with what I see on the screen. But what I see surrounding the the the property is um at least a couple of buildings of of a similar bulk and size. And I think the granting of a waiver um we we are to consider it in light of whether it meets a requirement or the objectives of the site plan section of the ordinance. Um, and other than the provision that says protection of environment features on the site in adjacent areas, there's really not much there about size and

bulk of the the building. There's another section that I haven't been able to find yet about the purpose of the formbbased code also being consulted when we decide whether to grant a waiver. I I I I don't know whether we need to address this issue tonight separate from the approval the global approval. Um if if if other board members feel differently or think differently and explain if we need to do so tonight then I'm all if the uh board doesn't grant the waiver tonight it means they'll have to come back and meet that standard and do a different design.

What they could they I think that you you could make that decision as part of the overall project review. Um I think it's helpful for the applicant to have an answer now. Um but I I don't think it's needed. Okay. I'm I'm certainly prepared to move forward if uh it's going to be helpful to the overall process and if the board members are prepared to act on this. I think anything we etch from this stone is going to be helpful.

Okay. I'm comfortable as well. And actually I'm in favor of the waiver. I think there's again kind of and we're going through a comprehensive plan effort now. I think we are realizing that the application of formbbased coding has been a difficult process and I think that you know where we've used it you know it's a question whether we used appropriate in certain areas and this might be another example that you know right now we've got the 4.2 to maybe it should be under a different formbbased code. So I think that you know we're learning and I think this all is going to go into the the new planning and there may be some adjustments but I agree. I think this is truly part of the urban center uh of Auburn and uh you know we have a theater across the street it and we want to you know highlight that theater. It's in walking distance of our true downtown. So, I think that this is an area that we do look for increased density and uh and to make it more of a walkable uh downtown. So, for that reason, I'm I'm in favor of the waiver.

Let's see if we can get a motion on the floor uh on on the waiver. There's a proposed motion in our file. If anybody would care to track that, either to approve or deny. I [clears throat] excuse me. I make a motion to approve the proposed waiver requests from section 60-549-1 building front setback building width and section 60-549-2 building frontage based on the written responses from the applicant and the submission dated November 4th, 2025. I'll second that.

Motion by Riley, seconded by Bob. Discussion. No discussion. All in favor of the motion. All oppose. Motion passes six to one. The odds behind the curtain wants me to say who voted. No. Have Moren. There we go. All right. Um, I'd entertain a motion as to how we dispose of the rest of the uh matters in front of us tonight. I'd make a motion to uh table approval to a date certain of next month's planning board meeting uh as we conduct a special exception review. for for the application.

Second. Seconded. Just a quick question. Are we tableabling or are we continuing? What's the difference? I think if we're tableabling it, it has to be renoticed. If we do something to a date certain, we don't need to renotice. I think it's best if you postpone your decision and continue the public hearing to the date certain rather than a a tableabling. So although we've closed the public hearing, we can by consensus of the board agree to reopen the public hearing. I think as a public hearing

as part of the special exception review, I think you should accept comments on that part of the application as a as a continuation of a of a public hearing or a reopening at the next meeting.

And the reason that I asked my question is because Sam had suggested that we have to act within 30 days of the close of the public hearing. So if we don't close the public hearing, we reopen this public hearing to be continued to a date certain, then we're not under any pressure to do something within the 30 days because we've inadvertently closed the public hearing tonight. I I think that's accurate. I also think um we can check with the applicant to make sure we're you know they're they're not intent intending to challenge that. Um I think they're here. They want a complete review and a complete application. They seem to be willing to cooperate with that with that timeline.

That was my understanding and that that a confirmation. Certainly. Am I able to withdraw my uh Yes. I would like to withdraw the motion and restate it as I make a motion to continue this public hearing to a date certain of the February planning board meeting awaiting a special exception review. Second

been moved and seconded to continue the public hearing uh to the date certain being our February 2026 meeting uh at which time we will take up the special exception review application that will be submitted. Everyone understand? Any discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous. Well, thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you all. I just want to I'm eating crow. The updated deed was in the paperwork. I just missed it. Just putting that out there. Thank you. No, that was very important. That should have been included.

No, it was there. It's just in the mountain of the different versions. It's a piece of paper I missed. Thanks, Maria. That was Thank you. Good point. [snorts] Everybody doing okay. Need to you want to?

Next matter is public hearing LWPCA 230 Penley Corner Road PID137-032. application to cease operations of the composting facility on behalf of the Lewis and Auburn Clean Water Authority. This property is located in the Agricultural Resource Protection District. submission serves to satisfy the condition of approval from the September 20 planning board meeting which states upon deactivation of the facility, a plan shall be provided to the city of Auburn that includes future use or demolition of the buildings and structures and disposal of any waste materials on site. We'll now hear from staff. Um yeah, so they're uh the LA AWPCA Lewon Auburn uh they're closing their compost facility. Um this was uh [clears throat] part of the plan from September 2020 which um basically was brought before the board as a pilot project for an anorobic digtor and there were several conditions on that plan and one of one of the conditions as stated was that in the event that the compost facility closes that it has to come back to the board for approval. Um so they have uh submitted a plan for deactivation concurrently with D. Um they propose to maintain all aspects of the site during closure and um they intend to sell uh the property to a prospective buyer who will be responsible for all future use uh site maintenance and obligations.

Um they have financial capacity estimates. Um written memo demonstrating technical technical capacity. Um a detailed plan for the the compost closure facility and and environmental monitoring and remediation measures.

I'm sorry. any member of the board have a question for staff at this Go ahead. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Paula Jiren from LA Clean Water Authority. I don't really have anything to add to that other than uh this facility has not been in operation for about six years now. Um, and we do still have an obligation to keep it insured. Um, as well as do, um, site inspections, um, snow removal, mowing, um, and the environmental monitoring, which does have a cost to which we don't really get much benefit for, which is why we're looking to to close the property. Happy to answer any questions. You've heard our discussion earlier tonight about financial capacity and I'm just unclear if this property is being sold and it sounds like there's a deal pending. Why do we care about how your organization's financial capacity? Why don't we why aren't we more concerned about the entity that's taking it over?

We don't have a actual deal in place. We do have prospective buyers. So, the building, I guess, if I'm understanding you correctly, or maybe Eric, you can answer better, it's it's essentially mothballled at this point. So, the building could continue to just depreciate while we take care of it. Um, we don't have a current use for it. Land application of bioolids was banned years ago, which is why our composting facility shut down. So, we essentially have a property that's not currently usable for any of our operations. The summary that I was given, which I just read aloud, said that when you do decommission, that you would provided the city of Auburn that includes future uses or demolition of the buildings or and structures. Are the buildings and structures being demolished?

No. What's the future use? So, we don't have an agreement yet. So, any uh future buyer would have to go through their own approval process. Um and they would have to work within DP's uh requirements for um environmental monitoring as well as the deed restrictions that are in place. So, we don't we don't have an agreement with anyone currently, so I I can't speak specifically to that. Well, how can we approve a demolition plan that doesn't I mean a deactivation plan if it doesn't address the future use of the property or the demolition of the buildings and structures. Eric, I don't know if you can help explain this. I'm not

If they have questions, they can. Okay. Sorry. Um yeah, to my understanding, we my entity does not need it anymore. So, we're simply looking to close the site um and also relinquish our license with the D. If I can get you a better answer, I apologize. My boss could not be here tonight. Can you tell me what closing the site means? It means that we relinquish any responsibility to it. So, it's already mothballled. It's not functioning. We're simply keeping it insured. um and things who then becomes responsible for it if you wash your hands of it prior to there being a new owner.

So we would we would hope to so we would maintain responsibility until there's a new owner for everything we're currently doing. So there won't be any gap there. So you're basically check marking a box and letting us know that it's shut down. We're done with it. We're just waiting for new buyer. We're jumping through the hoop that was given to us in 2020 by formally letting you know that. Is that basically [clears throat] the reason? Okay.

And essentially you're agreeing to continue be the steward of that property until there's a a buyer. That's correct. And having prospective buyers already, we would hope that would happen within the next few months. actually presented is actually from our city manager accepting the plan that you put together essentially agreeing to that and you've listed the monies involved to maintain it as is for a period of time at the cost you pro provided correct

I'm having trouble with the link between if if we I don't even know if we're supposed to approve this or what we're supposed to do with it, but if if we were to approve your decommissioning plan tonight and this property is then sold to ABC Company, what obligations do they have to this board to do what you're saying you're going to do? I believe they would still have to get approval for what they're going to be doing. There's restrictions on the property, but before they do that, they've got to they they're assuming responsibility for doing everything that you have in your correct that that would be part of a sales agreement

staff. Is this property deed in a way that makes that clear to a prospective buyer? I I don't know if the deed makes that clear. I think the planning board's approval required that in order to decommission this facility that they come back and um see the board uh make this finding. I guess if we uh can't talk about the reuse or the demolition, I see Ed's point. Um maybe there's a way to identify that as an outstanding issue. Um but acknowledge that other than that um the board would be comfortable and we can make sure uh that the buyer comes back to the board potentially before closing. I know they're trying to clear it so that there could be a purchase that happens and then the new buyer would come back to this board for a site plan approval. Um the city is working with a potential buyer and I don't know if I can disclose who that is tonight. Um, but they are proposing a use that's allowed in the A zone that would require them to come back here for site plan and special exception.

But to your knowledge, there's no deed restrictions or covenants that would convey that information to a prospective buyer that the property becomes their responsibility to continue what the current owner is doing until they change it. Is that correct as far as maintenance goes? Yes.

Yeah. I don't I don't think that's in the deed, but I'm not sure. I guess I would assume too that prospective buyer is not going to buy until they have an approved plan of operation to go forward. Yeah, I think we might be starting to put the cart before the horse and I might be responsible for that. Correct me if I'm wrong, staff. This is this step is necessary for them to relinquish ownership for it to become possible for another owner to take over. Is that basically the reason for this meeting?

Because the planning board um approval had a condition on it that they come back um prior to that closure. Um, yeah. And I don't know if we're sort of stuck in sort of a catch 22 here. If they can't close until they have the board's approval, but the owner may not want to disclose their use until they have a closing. Um, we could work with them on that and see, let me put it this way. If that directive was not given back in 2020, would this even come before us?

It's really unusual. Um I haven't seen it on another um project approval where in order to close the business or the approval that they have to come back to the board. I haven't I haven't seen that. But I think where it was quasi public, it was a compost facility. I think originally um there were a lot of public concerns from the neighborhood for operating a compost facility out there. Um for whatever reason the board required that of this application, but I haven't seen it on other other approvals. But if the board had not required this, this is something staff could handle from one end to the other. Correct. Yeah, we usually can't stop a use from ending. Um so

and I just want you to know if you look at page five um on the packet, it does list three deed restrictions. Restrict residential development, prohibit installation of any new wells for groundwater extraction without consent from main D. and outline an area around the closed BOF filter where excavation or disturbance of soils are prohibited without the consent from main D. And it would seem to me too that uh the city Auburn wanted to be sure to retain ownership of this property because right now it's under the ownership of the authority which is a uh Lewon Auburn uh organization. Correct.

Yes. We're quasi municipal. So the city of Lewon and then uh Auburn water and sewer district. So essentially own the property together. Essentially. Yes. Yeah.

Yeah. So I could see why, you know, the the city of Auburn wanted to be sure that the ownership would essentially come back for review for reuse back to Auburn and not be caught up being owned by two municipalities. And maybe that was the motivation for it. I I don't know what motivated that condition at that time. Is there would there be I'm I know you didn't come here expecting uh would there be any reason that you couldn't return to this board when the authority and the buyer have made their agreement to have us bless this decommissioning plan but also we will meet the buyer and be satisfied that they can do I'm not prepared to answer that right now, but I can get you an answer.

Will it gum up the works if we kick the can down the road till we till you have a buyer? I can't completely answer that. I mean, we're at a point where we definitely do want to u move on from the property, and I think that'll happen if it, you know, takes another month or so or, you know, whatever you need us to do or we'll do it. Would you be prepared to continue to be responsible for everything required in this deactivation plan? Yes, we're obligated to. Yep. regardless of whether you own it or not because you're asking us

No, that would be part of a sales agreement. Those those responsibilities would be transferred, right? And we don't know who this entity is or what their track record is or anything of that nature. And I guess that at least I think that's what some of our right is as Eric mentioned um probably the most prominent prospective buyer is working with the city of Auburn currently. kind of interesting. Even last night we were trying to think of what would be the situation that this board may have to go into an executive session.

So I have a question. Uh so I think earlier you mentioned something along the lines of like bioolid ban on bioolid composting. Yes. Is that a city? Was that a city decision? A state decision? That was a state decision. Okay. Does that involve like different organisms and like composting? P Oh, is it P? That's correct. That's correct. Okay.

Pleasure. We we could um you've identified some questions that the board still has and if you wanted to um you could direct us to get answers to those before you make a decision. I look at it this way, Ed. We don't know why this is here. This just seems to be a fiery hoop. No one really knows why. And if they weren't mandated to let us know, we'd be none the wiser and city would be handling it anyway. I I'm ready to make a motion and and let this young lady's life get a little easier. [laughter] Do Do we need to open it up for public comment? It is a notice public hearing. Okay. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Would you make a motion, please, to go into public hearing? Make a motion that we open the public hearing. Second. Marine made the motion and I think Tim beat Riley to the to the second. Anybody care to speak on this issue? [clears throat] You have five minutes to do so. Seeing no one will close the public hearing with a motion. Make a motion we close the public hearing. Second. Motion by Marine, second by Bob. All in favor? All right. Tim, you want to make a motion?

I make a motion to approve the application submitted by the Lewon Auburn L AWPCA to cease operation of the city composting facility located at 230 Penley Corner Road P137-032 based on the applicant submission letter and materials dated December 18, 2025. Second. Made a motion. Bob.

Bob was a second. Any discussion on that motion? All in favor? This is unanimously. Young lady [snorts] has her life back. All right. I understand that our next item under other business, staff request that [snorts] the planning board vote to initiate consideration of an amendment to chapter 60 has already happened. Did I understand that correctly?

That's that's correct. Um it was an oversight on our part with staff changes. So that change has already been initiated. This was back in October, I believe. So, at this point, uh, staff, we will be drafting changes to present to the board at the next meeting for a public hearing. Well, Tim, thank you very much for not bringing things to us that we don't need to be dealing with in the first place.

Thank you. Uh, public comment time when anybody uh wishes to speak on something not on our agenda may do so. Um Stephen B575 Johnson Road. Uh I attended the special meeting of last evening which was more than a training session but was an actual planning board meeting and was very interested in a number of the comments and observations that were made. One of the things that came out of last night's session was uh the surprise, frankly, on apparently on the part of several board members about the receipt of information about a pending application uh which of course is directed to receiving information only at a public hearing and not doing any independent uh things like even doing a uh a visual observation of the site. uh to the extent that perhaps uh you couldn't even drive by a site. Uh I think that is perhaps a bit hyper techchnical uh and that certainly you ought not to have to alter a regular travel route. The problem with doing informal site reviews consists of uh people getting out of cars and inevitably meeting some neighbor who has some perspective on the proposed application, usually negative. That's to be avoided. But uh I think that it was a bit hyper techchnical not to permit somebody to do a visual driveby. There's a a lot of difference between looking at a map, even an elevation map, and visual observation physically observing a site. And I can think of at least one application within recent memory where if there had been a visual observation of the site by means

of a site visit that an application that was approved would almost certainly have been uh rejected. Um that brings up the subject of site visits. To my recollection, there's only been one site visit by this board in the last four years. Uh that was very well conducted. Everyone behaved themselves. No one attempted to piler information from anybody else uh who was present on the site visit. There were staff there uh members of the public representative of the applicant. The visit went very well. So I encourage the board to uh foster more site visits in the future as a means of developing uh information on the character of a site uh whether they have ultimately come to one decision or another about an application. Having that kind of visual observation uh is very valuable. There used to be a lot more site visits than there have been in recent years and I uh urge their restoration to the active uh 53man roster for future site visits. Uh the other topic that came up last night of interest was uh to me at least was uh the characterization of board functions as being quasi judicial and legislative in nature and two different functions of this board. And there was careful discussion about the nature of the activities of the board when performing one or the other of those functions uh but relatively little uh direction as to which activities of the board constitute of legislative functions and which constituted uh the quasi judicial function. And it's uh I think uh a safe sort of a shorthand to say that the recommendations of this board to the city council for changes to

the zoning map or a zoning ordinance, the text of an ordinance, those are legislative functions. Whereas the actions of this board where it is the final arbiter of the city's position on an application for site review, special exceptions or subdivision, the three S's are your quasi judicial functions. Uh and those can be quickly kept in your heads when uh considering why are we here for any particular matter before you. Uh with those features in mind, thank you. Any other matters to come before the board? Being none, I take a motion to adjourn.

Yes. Sorry. uh terms of miscellaneous items uh kind of the discussion that we had yesterday as well uh and I was talking to a board member about it but uh just some sort of uh semblance if this doesn't have to formalize today but um I know around this time last year when I was new to the board there was discussion of like uh creating a subcommittee to review the policies and procedures and to update some of the technical terms uh other things around those in that nature and so I just wanted to see if there was any interest doing that. We don't have to do that today. Obviously, we can can wait till whenever, but um I've definitely been keen on uh updating some of those.

So, Marine and I were appointed to that subcommittee along with the former chair and we attended a couple of meetings and um I think with staff changes and all and uh we we didn't finish the job. uh perhaps in February once we um elect our chair and vice chair we can also add somebody to that committee and we can provide that. I think it's of interest to the board to continue to do so else. Thank you very much. Motion to adjurnn. So moved. Second. Move

be seconded. All in favor? Thank you. Sorry.