Auburn planning board approves waiver for 53‑unit Auburn Town Center Apartments, continues final review to February

The Auburn Planning Board on a 6–1 vote approved a waiver that would allow a building frontage substantially larger than the 110‑foot form‑based‑code standard for the proposed 53‑unit Auburn Town Center Apartments at 15 Academy Street and agreed to continue final action on subdivision and site‑plan approvals to a date‑certain in February for a combined special‑exception review.

The waiver vote followed a lengthy public hearing, applicant presentation and board questions about on‑street parking, sight distance, deed restrictions and whether the project should be reviewed under the form‑based code’s special‑exception standards. Acting Chair (speaker 1) opened the hearing and staff summarized that the board had granted preliminary approval at its December meeting but that the building‑width waiver remained outstanding (staff noted the code’s 110‑foot maximum and the applicant’s larger proposed frontage).

The applicant, Cale Barasso of Goral Palmer, said the project is designed to break up the building visually with facade undulation, landscaping and multiple pedestrian entries and argued the proposed frontage would meet the code’s intent. “I don’t think that this is necessarily an unsafe condition,” Barasso said when discussing sight‑distance and traffic concerns, adding that on‑site parking meets ordinance requirements and that additional guest spaces have off‑site rights.

Several residents urged caution. John Cleveland of 183 Davis Avenue told the board he could find only an older bank letter in the packet and said it did not demonstrate commitment to a multi‑million‑dollar project, arguing the board should require clearer proof of financial and technical capacity before final approval. “This is a large project,” Cleveland said, “and I would suggest you think whether this actually meets the requirement to show financial capacity as required under the ordinance.”

Ron Russell, whose property adjoins the site, told the board the neighborhood already faces traffic backups on Elm and Academy streets and said the building’s scale and parking could exacerbate congestion. Evan Cyr, a local resident and former planning board member, pointed the board to form‑based‑code language that can trigger a special‑exception review for buildings over 12,000 square feet and highlighted deed language discussed in the packet.

Board members questioned whether the application should include a special‑exception filing to address findings the ordinance requires for projects of this size and character. Staff and at least two board members recommended combining site‑plan, subdivision and special‑exception review on the same night to allow one set of findings and to reduce the risk of staggered appeal periods. The board agreed to continue the remaining items to the February planning board meeting, with the applicant indicating it would submit the special‑exception materials for that date.

On the waiver itself, Riley Bergeron moved to approve the waiver from sections 60‑5‑49‑1 and 60‑5‑49‑2 (building front setback/building width and building frontage) based on the applicant’s written responses; Bob Hayes seconded. The motion passed 6–1. The board recorded the tally but did not record every member’s roll‑call vote in the record beyond the 6–1 result.

The board’s decision leaves open the broader procedural question that several members raised: whether the project must simultaneously satisfy special‑exception findings before final subdivision and site‑plan approvals. The board stipulated that the applicant must submit materials for the special‑exception review and agreed to rehear the full application at the agreed date‑certain in February.

Next steps: the applicant will prepare and submit the special‑exception materials and the board will reconvene the public hearing in February; at that meeting the board expects to take the combined vote on the subdivision, site plan and special‑exception criteria.