AUBURN — After a lengthy public hearing and debate over zoning amendments aimed at encouraging housing growth, the City Council moved forward on an ambitious rezone of Auburn’s core residential area.

A final vote of 5-2 in a first reading came after several amendments were made to the original proposal in an effort to make the changes more palatable to concerned residents. Much of the public concern has been over an increase in allowed housing density, but also over allowed commercial uses that some residents argued would change the character of the largely single-family neighborhoods.

The amendment affects 1,687 acres, including sections of Court, Lake and Turner streets; and Park, Western and Gamage avenues, changing the zone to traditional downtown neighborhood, a type of form-based code that allows for a mix of residential and commercial uses.

It’s been described by city officials as a way to encourage revitalization and a larger variety of housing types. Several city councilors said Monday that while many constituents have expressed concerns, many others have supported the changes due to the current housing crisis.

A City Council memo describes the zoning type as “small- to medium-sized buildings with smaller front yards and stoops in a more compact urban environment, and includes traditional neighborhood-sized storefronts.” The proposal also called for an allowed density of 16 units per acre.

Prior to a lengthy public comment period, Councilor Ryan Hawes offered several amendments to the proposal, including capping the density at 14 units per acre, as well as not allowing “age-restricted retail,” which includes marijuana businesses. Several other uses were also limited by requiring a special exception by the Planning Board.

Hawes said he sat down with Councilor Dana Staples to hash out the amendments after hearing public feedback on both sides of the issue. He told the audience Monday that 80% of constituents he spoke to were in favor of the changes. He said they settled on 14 units per acre because there are already examples of 12 units per acre in the area.

Councilor Rick Whiting, who urged the council to send the proposal back to the Planning Board for another hearing, said he couldn’t “conceive” of that density in certain areas of the proposed change.

Mayor Jason Levesque, who has strongly advocated for new housing development, said some areas just aren’t “practical” from a development standpoint financially. He also pointed out that a quarter-acre lot with two duplexes is the same as 16-units per acre.

Levesque also responded to questions over why he called a special meeting for March 28, a week earlier than the change would have normally been up for a second and final reading. He said delaying would put “a financial burden on not only developers but individual property owners,” who are looking to move ahead with projects, especially as costs continue to rise.

During public comment, several people questioned why the council appeared to be rushing through the change when the amendments were still being digested by the public. Several people called for the measure to be returned to the Planning Board.

Other residents disagreed over the nature of the zoning itself, with questions over traffic and how multifamily housing fits into certain areas.

Ryan Smith said the Planning Board was slated to take up a 60-unit development proposal on Court Street soon, and said the council appeared to be “accelerating the second reading” in order to help the project move ahead.

In a letter to the Sun Journal, former City Councilor Bob Hayes argued that the city should utilize more than one type of form-based code for the proposed area. He takes issue with the proposed boundary of the change.

“Certainly Auburn’s ‘downtown’ does not extend beyond Park Avenue,” he said. “Even residents along Court and Lake inside Park to the top of Goff Hill don’t consider themselves in a ‘downtown neighborhood.'”

Hayes also spoke during the council hearing Monday, agreeing the proposal should head back to the Planning Board.

Some however, like Jessica Klimek, said the city needs to address the housing crisis by allowing additional housing options. She said housing affordability would enable more young people to remain in the area. She also commented on the debate over multifamily housing, stating, “Who are we to say as homeowners that people who live in multifamily buildings don’t deserve to live in a neighborhood?”

Councilor Joe Morin said he talks to constituents “every single day who are suffering through this housing crisis.”

The debate Monday also raised questions over whether any elected officials would be “benefiting” financially from the zoning changes. Staples, in an attempt to “make sure we have nothing to hide,” made a motion to add an addendum that would list any parcel ID that is owned in part by any elected official or Planning Board member.

Levesque said such a move would be “precedent changing,” and said he has “nothing to hide.” He eventually listed off the several properties he owns in the city, stating, “I’m not a land baron or developer.”

Staples’ motion failed 4-3.

An effort to table the vote and send the amendments back to the Planning Board failed 4-3, with Councilors Staples, Gerry and Whiting in favor.

Ultimately, the first reading passed with Gerry and Whiting opposed.

Staples, who led the Comprehensive Plan process last year, said when he first embarked on the role, he read all he could on the issue. When he first saw recommendations to increase density, he kept looking, he said. Then the concept of increasing density was repeated over and over.

“People need a place to live,” he said, adding that more amenities and jobs come from increasing the population. “You don’t just get the good stuff by closing your eyes and hoping that the good stuff happens.”

Copy the Story Link

« Previous

Lewiston man to serve 19 years for fatal stabbing at Auburn McDonald’s

Next »

Renovation of historic Lewiston building begins