Auburn planning board approves Brickyard Commons site plan with conditions after abstention and public groundwater concerns

The Auburn Planning Board on June 18, 2025 approved a site plan for Brickyard Commons, a proposed 96‑unit apartment complex at Brickyard Circle, with conditions including completion of a left‑turn lane on Washington Street North and a traffic warning sign before certificates of occupancy. Planning Board member Bob Hayes abstained from deliberation and the vote after saying prior zoning and administrative actions had “tainted” his ability to be objective.

The vote concluded a contentious public hearing in which several neighbors urged the board to require a hydrologic and soil analysis before permitting, citing historical spills at the adjacent industrial property known in the record as the Safe and Handling/gantry area. Steven Bridal, a resident who identified addresses in Auburn and Durham, said the applicant’s submitted documents did not answer “the core question” of whether any discharge, drainage, or seepage from the Safe and Handling site flows downgrade or otherwise to the subject parcel. Marcel Larose, who said he formerly managed maintenance at Safe and Handling, described hundreds of recorded spills and cited specific incident reports from 2006 and 2015.

Why it matters: neighbors and at least some board members said the outstanding technical question about groundwater and contaminant pathways affects public health and the board’s standard to protect the public’s safety, while the applicant and staff relied on earlier studies and regulatory oversight by the state.

Board procedure and abstention: At the start of the meeting Bob Hayes read a prepared statement saying, “I am abstaining from voting on this 3 story 8 structure housing development project before this planning board for 2 reasons. 1 is based upon findings and the other because of finding violence,” and later clarified his abstention stemmed from perceived bias tied to earlier zone‑change and form‑based code processes. City legal counsel (identified in the record as Mike) advised that the board’s rules require the board to vote on whether an asserted bias rises to a disqualification that would require the member to leave the room and not participate. The board twice took motions related to Hayes’s request; after discussion the board voted to allow him to abstain and to step out of deliberation, with the board chair confirming Hayes would not participate once the motion carried.

Public‑comment issues and staff response: Neighbors and commenters asked that the board require a new hydrogeologic and soil study after the applicant’s recent document submissions; commenters and several board members said the principal prior technical study (the Saint Germain report cited in the record) dated to 2008 and did not provide ongoing monitoring. Staff and the applicant presented plan drawings and cross sections during the hearing; planning staff and an engineering representative explained that grading and groundwater profiles on the submitted plans generally show groundwater trending southeast away from the proposed building pads and toward a ravine and Taylor Brook. Staff also noted that the Safe and Handling site is subject to Maine Department of Environmental Protection oversight and that the Saint Germain report stated most analytes used at the gantry were highly reactive in soil and groundwater with the exception of MMA, which may persist.

Final decision and conditions: A motion found the proposal met the site‑plan and related ordinance standards for review and approved the Brickyard Commons site plan (assessor parcel ID 199‑052‑000) with named conditions including: (A) no development activity until bonding/inspection fees are set by Auburn Engineering, (B) a blasting permit issued in advance of any blasting, (C) construction of a left‑turn lane on Washington Street North to Brickyard Circle before issuance of a certificate of occupancy for 24 units or by September (whichever comes first), and (D) installation of Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices warning signs on the southbound approach prior to any certificate of occupancy. The motion carried; the transcript records “motion carries” but does not provide a roll‑call tally in the public record excerpt.

What the board did not do: The board did not adopt a requirement during this session to require new hydrogeologic or soil testing as a condition for approval. Several board members said they had considered it; at least one member indicated they would have been more comfortable with additional testing, but the motion before the board did not include that condition.

Next steps and context: With the approval and conditions recorded at the June 18 meeting, the applicant may proceed toward permitting tasks subject to the conditions listed above. Public comment and multiple earlier meetings on the project are part of the record; the board discussed prior meetings (May 13 and June 10) and prior technical submittals. Several residents cited longstanding community concern about spills at the neighboring industrial site and urged additional testing; the transcript shows these concerns were noted but not added as binding conditions.

Ending: The board closed the public hearing, resolved the abstention procedure for Hayes, approved the site plan with conditions, and adjourned the special meeting.