AUBURN — The Planning Board has been urged to reject a City Council proposal to remove the long-held income standard in the agricultural zone without first replacing it with another mechanism to control residential development.

In September, the council passed a resolution asking the board to provide an opinion on whether the city should eliminate the income standard, which requires a certain level of income be derived from agriculture activities as a condition to build a residence in the zone.

Officials say the income standard has prevented even longtime landowners from building homes and that an attempt to rework the rules in 2019 has not yielded any new farm operations as it was intended.

However, during a workshop this week, the Sustainability and Natural Resource Management Board and members of the public said the city should not remove the standard until a new framework for limiting development in the zone can be created. Some said simply removing the standard without a more careful process would cause a “land rush.”

The zone contains some 20,000 acres used for farming, forestry, recreation and open space, but the housing crisis has led to renewed questions about zoning rules citywide. Earlier this year, proposed state legislation to eliminate the use of income standards failed.

Jane Costlow, chairperson of the Sustainability and Natural Resource Management Board, said the group’s main recommendation to the Planning Board is to reject the proposed removal of the income requirement “without first replacing it with alternative limitations on residential development that align with the purpose of the (agricultural zone).”

The group said the city should conduct a “rigorous planning process” to protect the assets of the zone while allowing “limited development of housing in vetted locations.”

Costlow said replacing the income standard could be a requirement that a large portion of a parcel to be developed be set aside for conservation, easements or other land protection programs.

Asked if the income requirement has been a barrier to someone getting started in agriculture, Costlow said the committee has heard that it is.

“If the intent is to encourage (agriculture), the income requirement has seemed to be at odds with that,” she said.

But, she added, the existing zoning ordinance is “really clear on what the land is for.” She said it should be protected and conserved “because of its natural, aesthetic, and scenic value,” and also “because these areas are so remote from existing centers of development that any added uncontrolled growth could result in an economic burden on the city.”

The committee suggested that city staff create a scoring matrix that could help decisions on which land could potentially be used for residential development and which land should stay in conservation.

“The income requirement has protected this land, but it’s under increasing pressure and has caused many problems,” Costlow said. “Our recommendation would be that it be replaced, using a matrix and conservation.”

Staff said the income standard, which was lowered to 30% of an individual’s income in 2019, “doesn’t achieve the goal of new farms,” but that it does offer inexpensive land.

“A reality is that if this land no longer has the income requirement, I think it’s safe to say the land value would change,” Planning Coordinator Katherine Cook said.

The Planning Board has been asked by the City Council to provide its opinion on the income standard by March 20. Board Chairman Evan Cyr said the council had “certainly placed pressure on the board” by setting the deadline. During the workshop Tuesday, board members opted to schedule another workshop on the issue, which will include discussion on possible replacements of the income standard.

As the ordinance is written, if the income standard was removed, a landowner would still need to have at least 6.1 acres to build a home.

One member of the Sustainability and Natural Resource Management Board said he’s concerned that if the income requirement is removed without other protections, “things will change so quickly we won’t know what hit us.”

In a response to a committee question, staff said that with no new roads created, about 32 lots would become developable if the income standard was removed, with the potential for 92 new dwellings.

Planning Board member Mathieu Duvall said the agricultural zone is so large, it could be broken up into pieces. But he said, “changing everything all at once is a little worrisome. We definitely need to protect this resource that we’re pretty lucky to still have.”

Several people who have closely followed other zoning discussions in Auburn spoke during the workshop.

Jeff Harmon said the board should say no to eliminating the income standard and then initiate a process to replace it.

“The council’s intent is simply to build more houses,” Pam Rousseau said, adding that if the standard is removed, “They’ll start developing right away.”

Last month, Mayor Jason Levesque said, “There is not a foregone conclusion” from the council about the zoning rules. He said the council is looking to the Planning Board to “come up with some good viable options to protect prime (agricultural) land while still allowing individuals to have the right to build a home on their land.”