BIDDEFORD — The City Council on Tuesday granted approval to the first reading of revised shoreland zoning regulations that has raised the ire of some residents who would be affected by the new rules.

City Planner Greg Tansley said the Maine Department of Environmental Protection released new guidelines for municipal shoreland zoning in January 2015, but did not set a date by which municipalities would be required to adopt them.

Major amendments to the existing ordinance include alterations to a 30 percent volume and floor area rule pertaining to the development of non-conforming structures in the shoreland zone, allowance for cantilevered walkways to extend over the Saco River in Biddeford’s downtown, and standards regarding vegetation and lot cover.

The proposed changes have been a point of contention for some time, having been hotly debated in two Planning Board public hearings prior to a final hearing on July 6, when the Planning Board approved the revisions.

“Looking at the rules, I’ll say this: some people will be benefited by the new rules. Some people will not,” Tansley said Tuesday.

One of those rules is an amendment to allow expansion of a principal non-conforming structure’s footprint by 30 percent depending on how far the building is set back from the water.

A non-conforming structure includes any structure that does not meet setback, height, lot coverage or footprint coverage requirements, but is allowed because it was in lawful existence at the time the current ordinance took effect.

For structures located within 25 feet of the normal high-water line, expansion would not be allowed beyond 800 feet, or 30 percent of the structure’s footprint in 1989.

At the Planning Board hearing on July 6, the board unanimously voted to amend the zoning document to allow the non-conforming structure clause to be effective one year after adoption by the City Council, which Tansley said the DEP has “begrudgingly” allowed the city to do.

Tansley said this would allow people time to obtain the permits necessary to start or complete expansion and development projects on their homes if they want to fall in line with the new regulations.

“In going from the Planning Board process, there was a real concern that just putting this in place now, there’s very little time for (people) to be able to initiate that project and get the permit and get that done,” Tansley said.

A major point of public contention was a provision changing regulations to non-vegetated surfaces on properties in the shoreland zone.

Property owners in the zone are not allowed to have more than 20 percent of the property consist of non-vegetated surfaces. This will now include surfaces from which vegetation has been removed, including driveways and patio areas.

Under the approved amendments, naturally occurring ledge and rock outcroppings would be exempt from the rule and not count as non-vegetated surfaces, as long as the lot has been in continuous existence since before March 24, 1990.

Lots established after that date must count natural ledges in their lot cover when calculating non-vegetated surface lot cover.

Tansley said that if the exemption is adopted, peoples’ lots would be regulated based on the area of land not covered by existing natural ledge or un-vegetated rock.

He gave the example of an 80,000-square-foot lot covered by 40,000 square feet of natural ledge. The city would view that property as a 40,000-square-foot lot, and the 20 percent rule would be applied, allowing for 8,000 square feet of possible development for patios, decks and other non-vegetated surfaces.

“The more that’s exempt, the less you have to work with when that 20 percent rule gets applied,” Tansley said.

Opposition to the exemption came from conservationists, who said allowing continued development along the shoreline will increase the number of pollutants flowing into the watershed, because there would be less vegetation to absorb toxic runoff.

“Please realize that our shoreland zone includes not just the coast, but includes the fragile tributaries and streams. Many of us are aware or becoming aware that Thatcher Brook watershed is polluted, polluted to the extent that it has been cited by the DEP,” said Ken Buechs, vice chairman of the city Conservation Commission. “The major cause of that pollution is runoff … This proposed change, if approved as presented, would add to our problems. It is counterproductive. It is illogical.”

Other residents opposed the changes on the whole, saying they think the city is only adopting the amendments to further its downtown development.

“I think the DEP is getting crazier by the year,” said Chris Stone of Hills Beach, who also spoke at the public hearing last month. “I think these rules are arbitrarily written, and we’re quick to jump on them because it helps us with the RiverWalk (a city development project) … I think the city can just build a RiverWalk.”

Tansley said the city’s RiverWalk needs to be extended over the river if it is to be completed, because several of the mill buildings downtown are placed directly on the shoreline. He also said the city would be required to adopt the amendment, because cantilevered docks and walkways are not currently allowed to extend over the river.

“We’re eligible to adopt these new exemptions to allow the RiverWalk to extend out over the river, which it needs to, because some of the faces of these mills are right on the river,” Tansley said.

Tansley did note that the city could simply adopt the RiverWalk provision without updating the entire shoreland zoning document.

Stone also expressed her discontent with city officials because she believes the city did not adequately inform shoreland zone residents about the public hearings and proposed ordinance changes.

“The people of the coast don’t know about this for the most part. I think you should really send out a notice that you’re really discussing it. Not after the fact,” she said. “Everyone I speak to is unaware of it.”

Ultimately, the council voted 7-2 to move the proposed changes to a second reading, with Councilors Bob Mills and Stephen St. Cyr dissenting because of issues with notifying the public.

If the council approves the ordinance at its next meeting, the council has 30 days to send its revisions to the DEP. The DEP will then have 45 days to review the document before approving or rejecting it.

— Staff Writer Alan Bennett can be contacted at 282-1535, ext. 329, or abennett@journaltribune.com.