Planning Board - Regular Meeting

board meeting to order. Uh, chairman Ed Bear is not able to be here tonight, so as vice chair, I will be filling in for him this evening. I will go ahead and start with roll call to my left,

Chelsea Eaton, Bob Hayes, Bilah Hussein, Morin Hopkins, Tim D. Ro,

Andrea Westby. Great. Uh, I'd like to welcome our two new associate members, Chelsea Eaton and Kathy Shaw. Um, Chelsea, I will be elevating you to full member tonight um in Ed's absence and Kathy will be elevating you to full member tonight uh in Riley's absence. Right. Our first item tonight is a public hearing on chapter 60 zoning amendment. Uh, city council initiated requests for the planning board to review proposed changes to chapter 60 zoning and the agricultural and resource protection zone to streng strengthen protections for natural resources for solar and residential permit projects and make a recommendation to the council.

Yes. So, um, these are you should have received a paper packet of eight pages and um, it's also on the screen as well. These are proposed changes to increased protections of farmland in the axom for new residential development and new solar development. Um, planning staff met with the SNRB committee on Tuesday to go over the proposed changes. You should also have a copy of their minutes as well. It's a one-pager that summarizes um their com the comments that they have. The purpose of this meeting tonight will be to garner additional feedback from the planning board and then bring feedback from both committees to the council for the council eventually to adopt these changes. Um so as of right now at this meeting uh the board will be taking public comment and um adding any additional thoughts on the proposed changes. So to go over some highlights of these um the biggest things that have changed are um initially the previous language said for new single family homes they should be avoid being cited on soils of state importance. That language has been changed to say that they cannot be cited on farmland of statewide importance or prime farmland soils. This is deferring to the state definition. So um the state defines prime farmland as soils that have the greatest characteristics to support farming activity and agriculture activity and um farmland of statewide significance is is the same. Um it's it's anything that does not fall under prime farmland. So soils that have uh characteristics such as uh uh looking at depth to water table erodability uh characteristics of providing food and

forage. Um so that's what the USDA defines those two categories as. Additionally for new single family homes they initially it said avoid being cited on land determined to be essential habitat. It says it cannot be cited on land determined to be essential habitat as well as you cannot site a new home on wetlands or in slopes greater than 25%. And the change with solar um the biggest change with solar is that initially in determining um in determining prime farmland soils. Initially um it was using the NRCS maps but now you have to have a licensed soil evaluator go to the site to evaluate whether the soils are prime farmland. Um so that's another change as well. Um and I think um at the moment we will take uh any uh any additional uh public comment on these and any planning board thoughts at the moment.

Thank you. Does anyone on the planning board have any questions for Sam?

Um, there's something on page seven, uh, section G. Um, I would like to understand this better because this is a little confusing to me. It says, uh, not be cited on prime farmland. farmland of statewide importance as defined by USDA NRCS. Okay. And then it says the determination of whether that land is prime farmland or of statewide importance shall be made by a soil scientist from so Maine uh Department of A conservation and forestry. So I'm just confused by that. I don't understand who is making the decision because first it says NRCS and then it says Department of A conservation and forestry.

So the the licensed soil scientist would go to the site and make a determination as to whether the so as to whether it's prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance. So previously uh the language was very open-ended and and you would defer typically to the soils maps which are less accurate. So this is basically saying a statelicicensed professional will determine whether or not the soil meets the standards listed in the USDA and Yes. Exactly. Yeah.

Thank you. So, I have a question. Um, do we know what percent of the AGRP currently falls under like prime uh farmland of statewide significance? You're asking about the percentage of the zoning district that's in prime farmland, right?

Um, I don't have that information. Okay. I want to I want to play Go ahead. I want to play devil's advocate. Um, we're making things more restrictive and I can understand there are reasons to do that. My question is this. Um, and I've been having a hard time finding an answer in section 60. We're we may be advocating to put certain areas of land under an undetermined amount of time protection from any building whatsoever. So hypothetically, a parcel of land that is considered prime farmland, we could go a century and no one puts a farm on that land. We have land that hasn't been used. It's been reserved. Hasn't been used. Do any do we have any time considerations in any of this language where if after x amount of time nothing's happened, well then yeah, maybe we could consider changing that. Or is this end of it until the end of time? you know there's we're being very restrictive without allowing any understanding of future events. Do you know any have any idea about that?

I mean there's nothing in here about a timeline in terms of if something's left as prime farmland. Um I mean it is I think the the intent of this is to be as restrictive as possible to attempt to preserve more farmland. Um I think there were issues of you know homes being being developed in places that you know they shouldn't have been built in. Same with solar as well. But my question is if we go 100 years and no one ever builds a farm there, but we there's people that need housing, there needs I know the argument is going to be made by somebody or at least the thoughts of well so we're going to take X percentage of land out of Auburn's land use that nobody can ever do anything with that land could sit hypothetically for 150 years and just nothing happened to it. Correct. Yeah, that's a possibility.

But I think we have to realize as history has shown us this question comes up within a few years probably and you know even our comprehensive plan is being worked on now which has like a 10y year probably a 15year duration. So th this will be reviewed I'm sure uh within a decade or more. Thank you for those great questions. Um I'm not sure that it specifies um that the cost of that soil test should be um borne by the person that is will that is interested in using that land.

I don't see that specified here.

Yeah, that that's a great point. Um yeah, that was a comment brought up at the SNRB meeting on Tuesday that I forgot to mention. So those changes have not been incorporated yet. Um, I think our plan is to uh take comments from the planning board and from the SNRB and incorporate those changes into an updated draft to bring to the council. So, at the SNRB, it was discussed about specifying who pays the cost of the soil scientist and typically it's the developer or the applicant doing the solar project who would pay. Um, so we can provide language that specifies that as well. That's a great point. Any other questions for Sam? Okay. Uh, I will seek a motion to open the public hearing.

So moved. Seconded.

All in favor? Okay. Public hearing is open. And if any members of the public would like to speak, please uh come up to the microphone, introduce yourself with your name and address, and you will have 5 minutes. Steven Be 575 Johnson Road. I was a member of a small drafting committee three years ago together with members of other members of the public and staff members who did uh the complete overhaul of the Azone ordinance at that time. It underwent major revisions. uh and I am in favor of these more specific and restrictive amendments with especially with respect to the uh solar arrays. Uh the problem with solar arrays is that they are easiest and cheapest to build on the very best land that is best suited for farmland. Uh, and it's a lot easier to build a solar array when you don't have to go up a steep slope through a bog uh or drill into ledge with uh and otherwise utilize land that's full of huge boulders uh which is uh conversely the very best farmland. So that's why these proposed amendments I believe were put forth and I urge that they be adopted in this fashion. Uh I have not seen the comments of the SNRB. I looked online this morning to see if they were available to the public and didn't see them. I I'm in favor of adopting this ordinance as presently presented and addressing Mr. D. Ro's concern that this could potentially create a reserve uh of substantial areas of land for time indefinite. anyone who wants to uh can tomorrow afternoon gather 25 signatures and seek to amend the zoning map or text of the ordinance

assuming that the text of the ordinance remained the same. If a particular area which I believe was Mr. Droious's concern was very attractive for uh housing development and nobody had used it for farming for any particular period next week, next month, next year. Uh one can gather a petition together for 25 uh citizens and present that to the city for change of the zoning map. Or conversely or in addition, if one wish to change the text of the ordinance, you can do that by the same medium. Uh or the city council could initiate another change or the planning board itself could initiate a change, which it has sought to do uh very recently with respect uh uh to the 20,000 square foot minimum for lot size. that proposal initiated with the planning board just within the last couple of weeks. So, there are plenty of other opportunities to change ordinances or maps in the future as the city's needs dictate. So, I urge adoption of these amendments as presented. Thank you.

Thank you,

Michelle Melerano, 576 Trap Road. For all the land that the city upgrades to moderate or high growth areas, property owners taxes will be impacted by that. But I think it would be an important step to make to to make sure that those taxes aren't substantially increased unless those existing property owners build or subdivide or sell that property. Those properties should be grandfathered at their current tax rate. Otherwise, farmers may be at considerable risk of losing their land and their businesses when property taxes increase exponentially, especially if they're going from agriculture resource protection to high density areas. Regarding large solar arrays on agriculture and resource protection land, if the property is confirmed to have PAS contamination, which should clearly uh be determined via city or state testing prior to any status changes or projects getting underway, then that property should potentially be eligible by special exception, I would assume, for solar. Um again, especially for agriculture operations, this may be the only avenue available to farmers to actually survive. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, seeing no one else, I'll seek a motion to close the public hearing.

So moved.

Second. All in favor? Public hearing is closed. There any follow-up questions for staff or anything that the board members would like to discuss? Actually, that last uh reference to PAS was an issue that was brought up at the uh uh meeting Tuesday night. So I think it is a subject that should be discussed be providing some provision if farmland has been so designated but then is found to be PAS contaminated that that may be a appropriate use for that particular parcel.

I totally agree with you Bob. Um, is uh Sam, is there verbiage or talk of verbiage of properties that are known to be PAS contaminated if they would be um how they would be handled in reference to this proposed change?

Yeah. So, that was discussed Tuesday's meeting. There's not any verbiage in there right now. Um, I think potentially we could add language in there. um um somewhere probably um do doing for like erosion control in solar and other other language as well. Um I don't currently have a list of properties that have historically had POS but it was discussed. Yeah. Yeah, that was my next question is if staff has awareness of what and where we have significant PAS issues within City of Auburn. But anyway, I'm Thank you so much for the public for bringing that up. That's an absolutely outstanding point. If a property is contaminated with PAS, that's a fact. they the the property owner would not have to get a special exception in order to put solar on that property. I would assume like you if you've already proven that your property is contaminated by the POS, you are now considered I would assume you're now considered no longer in statewide importance because you've got PIFA. So, you wouldn't have to do you wouldn't have to get a special exception, I would think, in order you could just you could just do it. Is that right?

That's what I was getting to with whether or not there's verbiage in this section because we would need to have that to go by. Um, out of curiosity, does anybody know if the the any properties in Auburn that are contaminated with PAS that that's known? Is that all farmland or is some of it now maybe has been grown in and is now forested? Does that question make sense? Do we know? I'm just curious.

Yeah, I don't know for sure. I I suspect most of it is farmland, but I can't say. Do you know if the criteria that would designate it prime farmland um would negate um that designation if there were PAS found on the property? Do we need an exception process or are you not prime farmland if it's contaminated? I mean, if it's contaminated, you're you're not I mean, they would the scientists would check all those things, but um yeah, I'd say it would no longer be in those categories.

So, in that case, an exception wouldn't really be needed. It just that would remove it from that designation. It would. Yeah. Okay. But just as a followup, is farmland now mapped? Are there areas now that are identified as the farmland?

There are uh the the statewide maps which are I believe part of the the comprehensive plan that maps prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance. Um, so those resources, um, I believe you can find them online on the USDA website, although I think, um, they they they sort of show more general areas in the city, I raised that question because I think that, you know, the an established farm is probably not going to be the applicant for a solar farm. So I think the solar uh entity farm entity would have to supply or provide an application anyway. So I think that it would still need to be reviewed by the planning board to be sure that they through the special exception process it that would you know have to be proved that that particular area is truly been uh compromised by PAS.

Yeah. So I think um for solar projects that go to the pling board, the applicant um we could include a standard saying the applicant needs to demonstrate, you know, whether there has been in the past contamination of POS. And I'm not sure if the soil scientist would find that out or if the developer would know from the history of the site. Um but that certainly can be language that we include in here as well. Any other questions? Okay.

Uh so uh I mean just I guess kind of a broader question. Uh what kind of initiated like the whole process from at least that perspective of needing you know ordinance change particularly to the a zone. Um just in general

I think um generally there was concern about increased development in the a zone especially with solar projects. Um, initially there was talk of having a moratorum on all solar in the a zone. And so I think this is a way to to defer a lot to the USDA and the state um in terms of definitions of prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance and be a little bit more specific and then just have stricter protections in place and more clear language in place. Um uh cuz right now it's it's for homes, you know, avoid being cited on essential habitat and soils is kind of vague. Um but that's broadly speaking the reason why they wanted to do these changes. Yeah, I'm just uh I know looking at it from a bird's eye view that uh of course the city's going through its comp plan uh and updating that in terms of community input of what the people of the city want their the city to look like. And um yeah, I just think you know it seems a little more reactionary in terms of something that an issue that really I don't really see necessarily. I know that we had a project a couple months ago, a couple months back where we uh it was prime I mean it was stated as prime farmland of statewide significance and they ended up putting that solar far solar array there and they were renewing their uh approval from the planning board and uh and I could see in that particular instance like there's a need for restricting the type of development that happens out in farmland and in the egg zone. So, uh, I just think that in terms of like comments for the city council, they really do have to try to strike that balance of, you know, resource protection, what the

a zone was meant to be for, like protecting our natural resources, protecting our heritage industries, but at the same time not do it in a way that stifles, you know, the potential of Auburn's growth. That makes sense. And I don't know if people in the board share that opinion, but uh I think that's a very, you know, fine balance to to walk in terms of this ordinance. You know, I think it it does it pushes Auburn in one direction and and and doesn't really do balance to it. That makes sense. Mhm.

Actually in a way u allowing soft farms on some farmland is actually helping the sustainability of some farms. U again I if there are some marginal areas that can't truly be farmed. farming industry you know uh is a difficult industry. So solar farm uh does provide an income to a farm activity which might uh maintain that activity on land uh contingent to the solar farm. So I think that you're right there needs to be a balance. We don't want to infringe upon the true usable farmland, but farmland for solar farm use is helpful to the farm farm industry as well. Any other questions or points for discussion? Okay. Are you seeking a motion from the planning board or are you just gathering our thoughts and comments to take back to the city council?

Um, I'm not seeking a vote tonight. I think we're just taking comments. Um, so if the board has any, I guess, final statements on their sort of endorsement or support of the changes or any comments we should incorporate as we take it to the council, I would make a note of that as well. Um, but you can make a motion to authorize it to go to the council with pending comments from both SNRB and the planning board. That'd be my suggestion. Okay. Anyone like to make a motion?

To me, that was well stated. I would put that into writing and I would uh suggest that as a motion I'd like to include. Um a recommendation to city council to include provisions per feet po for PAS contaminated soils and how those are to be handled in reference to these proposed revisions. Bob, would you like to amend your motion to include that? Accept that language as well. Thank you. Do we have a second?

Second. All those in favor? Motion carries. All right. Uh that brings us to the public comment section of our agenda. If any members of the public would like to comment, uh please come up to the podium, state your name and address, and you will have five minutes. It's your time, Steve. What I had to say more of your time.

All right. Uh, miscellaneous. Does anyone have anything they want to discuss? out of t Tuesday night's meeting sustainability it was a good discussion and we were presented uh by the comprehensive planning committee uh a a preview of what might come before us we all should spend some time and go to review some of the topics that have been discussed USS you know I think because of some state directives we're really looking at the identification of low growth modic growth high growth uh and the high growth is indicated in red there's some major areas that are in red that are uh uh I think need to be scrutinized so I think that this will be going to the public. There'll be some public sessions uh you know individually we may want to speak but this will be coming to the planning board for then uh public hearing. So I think we all need to kind of come up to speed and uh take a very careful look.

Thank you. Well, yeah. Uh I just wanted staff uh for some of the questions that at least the board had if you could go back to council with those like u terms of I think I asked for like a percentage. I mean justformational kind of thing. I mean, I'm sure the council will do their homework, but um to really like I think it was the percentage of what percentage of the a zone is is prime farmland of statewide significance and how how how will it affect um how it will affect them? So, yeah, I can definitely bring that to council.

Anyone else? All right. Seeing none, I will seek a motion to adjurnn. So moved. Second. All in favor?