Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planned Unit Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board workshops planned-unit-development ordinance; board signals preference for flexible incentives and a five-unit threshold
Summary
The Lewiston Planning Board held a workshop and directed staff to draft a flexible PUD ordinance with incentives for owner-occupied and affordable units, a five-unit eligibility threshold and provisions for mixed uses and shared amenities.
The Lewiston Planning Board held a workshop on a proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinance and provided staff direction on structure, incentives and thresholds for future draft language.
Planning staff presented examples and practices from Auburn, Gorham and York and sketched a draft PUD framework covering purpose, eligibility, permitted uses, standards, open-space expectations, density bonuses and process. "They have to design the open space before they design the rest of the subdivision," Land Use Planner Craig Thibault said when describing York’s conceptual-review approach; Gorham’s process was described as more like a rezoning and Auburn as more flexible with phasing and a 20% density bonus in some cases.
Board members broadly favored a flexible, incentive-driven PUD rather than a highly prescriptive regime. Members said incentives should encourage owner-occupied units and affordability without mandating them. "Owner occupied, as well as affordable and workforce housing," a board member summarized as a preferred direction for incentives. Several members asked staff to provide a clear definition for "workforce housing" and to avoid an absolute requirement that a portion of any PUD be permanently affordable.
A substantive point of consensus was to use a minimum threshold based on unit count rather than lot acreage. Board members favored making proposed PUDs eligible when the proposal includes five or more dwelling units (including mixed-use configurations) rather than imposing a two-acre minimum. The board discussed how to define "unit" for the ordinance (e.g., apartments, townhouses, small single-family units) and how to treat mixed commercial or light-industrial uses when the proposal shows a clear public benefit and compatibility.
Board members also asked staff to ensure the draft addresses common amenities beyond open space — for example shared community buildings, public squares or other urban amenities — and to preserve waiver authority where the Planning Board might allow departures from strict design standards when justified. Several members asked staff to return to developers and contractors for practical feedback on phasing, septic and utility timelines as the draft is refined.
Staff said they will return a redlined ordinance for further board review. The board did not take a formal adoption vote at the workshop; members asked for one additional workshop to review refined language.
