AUGUSTA — A perennial debate within Auburn played out in front of Maine legislators Monday, as a bill that would eliminate long-held building restrictions received hours of testimony.

LD 1884, introduced by Rep. Bruce Bickford, R-Auburn, would make it illegal for municipalities to use income requirements as a condition for home construction, something that Auburn has used in its agricultural zone since the 1960s.

Those opposing the bill said the zoning rules have been used as both a means to concentrate growth in the city’s urban neighborhoods, where there are services, and to ensure that farmland stays that way.

But those in favor of striking down the rule say it’s been unfair for the majority of taxpayers — including many who own property in the zone and can’t live there — and has stifled new housing at a time when it’s desperately needed.

Echoing a term voiced by Auburn Mayor Jason Levesque, Bickford said the rules have caused “artificial land scarcity.”

Monday’s three-hour hearing brought up a complex mix of issues, from housing affordability and equity, to farming and water quality at Lake Auburn. Levesque has argued that the income requirement amounts to “socioeconomic discrimination,” and that it’s a matter of equity, but those opposed to the bill doubted claims that any development in the rural areas would benefit low-income individuals.

Among those testifying against the proposal Monday were Lewiston officials, who are concerned that eliminating the income standard would lead to more development in the Lake Auburn watershed, potentially impacting water quality at the lake, which is the drinking water source for both cities.

Lewiston Mayor Carl Sheline said the filtration waiver used by both cities to avoid a costly filtration plant “would be put in jeopardy should development occur within the lake’s watershed.”

He also said “any attempt to link this bill to the statewide conversation on affordable housing that is occurring is purely opportunistic. It is highly likely that passage of this legislation will only produce expensive homes on multi-acre lots.”

Levesque said ongoing support for the income rule is “NIMBYism, plain and simple,” and that the zoning has created a “tax break” for those living in the zone. He said he found out about the issue when he purchased his 13-acre property, seven of which is in the agricultural zone.

“You have to look at intent of this ordinance,” he said, arguing that it’s to keep people out.

In Auburn, a new home can only be built in the agricultural zone if landowners can prove that they’ve made at least 30% of their income from agricultural business. Until just two years ago, the income requirement was 50%. The recent changes also added a stipulation that the income could be measured as 30% of the area median income. That means that in order to build a home, someone needs to make roughly $15,000 from agriculture.

During his testimony Monday, Bickford questioned how a senior could create that much income from farming, and claimed the ordinance includes a provision that could force someone to move from their house if they didn’t meet the standard.

Eric Cousens, director of planning and permitting in Auburn, said to his knowledge the city has never forced an individual to move out of a property for failing to meet the standard. He also said the ordinance allows a property owner to seek an exception to the rule based on “reasons beyond your control,” like age or injury.

Lawmakers on Monday frequently appeared to struggle to understand why the state should get involved with a law that is specific to Auburn. Multiple people said Auburn is the only municipality to utilize an income standard for building, and committee members questioned local support for the change.

Bickford and Levesque both argued that the rules could also be adopted in other municipalities in order to stop development, but Rep. Mike Sylvester, chairman of the Labor and Housing Committee, pointed out that no other municipality has followed suit in 60 years.

“Normally we have municipalities coming in asking us to not change policies,” he said.

Sheline argued that the agricultural zone rules enjoy “wide support” within Auburn, and that “faced with an uncooperative City Council and unimpressed residents, the only path forward was to enlist the help of the Maine State Legislature.”

Rep. Kristen Cloutier, the former Lewiston mayor, agreed with Sheline, stating that several times the issue has been “voted down by everyday residents.” She said the push to remove the restrictions has been done “under the guise of equity,” but said new single-family homes away from public infrastructure will “hardly be affordable.”

She said the recent state commission to increase housing by looking at zoning and land use regulations considered LD 1884 and chose not to recommend it for passage.

Francis Eanes, a Bates College professor who previously conducted research on Auburn’s land use, said that “despite it’s stated aims, this will not create more affordable housing.”

“Without a doubt, there’s a (housing) shortage, but detached single-family housing in rural areas is the single most expensive kind of housing to build,” he said.

He echoed several others who are concerned that opening up the land now will cause a real estate rush that will “push (agricultural) homesteads out of reach for the very folks this is aimed to help.”

Heather Spalding, a representative from the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, said the current language is “not intended to keep specific sets of people out” of the zone, but rather “intended to allow anyone to access this land and use it for farming.”

Some Auburn residents, like Brad Kowalski, showcased the confusing nature of the zoning. He said his family bought a 16-acre lot with the intention of building another residence for his aging parents without realizing that only 3.5 acres were zoned residential. He hoped a recent effort to expand residential “strip zones” in Auburn would help him, but the effort was postponed indefinitely after considerable public opposition.

The example led to several comments on potential local compromises to the issue, including removing land from the zone that is unusable for farming or other agricultural uses, and focusing development restrictions in watershed areas to address water quality concerns. But, several people said, Auburn should be allowed to decide for itself.

In the coming weeks, the committee will hold a work session, which could include amendments to the bill. Then, the committee will take a vote to recommend whether or not the legislation should move forward.

No matter the outcome, Levesque said he’d continue the effort to change the rules, calling it a “moral imperative.”

“I’ll keep pushing until this gets done, or until they stop electing me,” he said.

Copy the Story Link

« Previous

Lead levels in some Lewiston schools’ water above state threshold

Next »

Photo: Quiet time