AUBURN — The city is moving closer to eliminating the long-held income standard in the Agriculture and Resource Protection zone, but some residents are skeptical with the city’s current proposal.
According to Eric Cousens, director of planning and permitting, the draft proposal would strike the income standard, but designates land use standards that would keep the zone’s “rural character in place.”
The current income standard stipulates that in order to build a home, 30% of the property owner’s gross annual income or an amount equal to at least 30% of the city’s median annual household income must be derived from farming.
Last year, the City Council jumpstarted the perennial debate by asking the Planning Board to make a recommendation on whether the income standard should be eliminated. Last month, the board said the council should not remove the standard “until such time as there is a reasonable alternative.” Since then, board member Evan Cyr drafted alternative language that was presented along with other options during a joint workshop Monday.
Cousens said city staff would take the comments made Monday and make a final draft for the Planning Board to consider during a public hearing soon. He said the current draft would allow building on 10-acre parcels, but would limit the building envelope — the portion that is cleared and developed into a residential use — to no more than 20% of the land. Someone with a 10-acre lot could clear two acres.
He said it would require the development to “avoid being sited on soils of significance or prime farmland.” The rules would also only apply in the portions of the agricultural zone outside the Lake Auburn watershed.
While most officials on the council and Planning Board appeared in agreement on removing the income standard, many questioned the best way to do it without creating unintended consequences. During a public comment period following the workshop, Jane Costlow criticized officials for talking about the “intent” of the new language, but overlooking the intent of the agricultural zone.
“You seem to have collectively decided it’s a residential zone rather than it’s true intent,” she said, referring to the zone’s purpose.
Councilor Steven Milks said he would be in favor of allowing parcels under 10 acres to also build homes, but other councilors, like Dana Staples were opposed. Milks and others argued that people should be able to build homes on land they own. Councilor Rick Whiting pushed back, stating that the proposal “makes Swiss cheese out of the (agricultural) zone.”
Cyr argued that if the 10-acre minimum lot size is maintained, the change would not create any more lots than already exist under current rules.
“We’re not trying to increase the number of homes that can be built,” he said. “We’re saying, if we’re not going to have the income standard, how can we make sure that a home isn’t detrimental to the zone.”
He added that the idea that removing the income standard is only meant to push unchecked residential development is “a huge fallacy,” and “one of the hardest things to push back against.”
Mayor Jason Levesque said there are “already checks and balances in place” to prevent someone from creating a large residential development on a giant piece of land.
However, others, like Belinda Gerry, said the concern she’s heard from many property owners is increased taxes. If changed, each 10-acre lot would be assessed as residential rather than farmland, potentially raising taxes.
Public comment on the proposal continued after the workshop Tuesday during the regular council meeting.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
