The majority of Scarborough Planning Board members at a public hearing on Monday said the proposed 25-foot setbacks between wetlands and new developments are “the bare minimum” the town ought to implement in order to protect its natural resources.

If passed by the Town Council, the ordinance would require new developments in town that need subdivision or site plan review to maintain a 25-foot buffer from adjacent wetlands. Planning Director Autumn Speer said at Monday’s public hearing that roughly 82% of properties in town would see minimal or no effects if it is passed, with many zones already having some form of wetland restrictions in place.

The proposed setbacks received criticism from some developers and support from some residents at the Planning Board meeting on Monday, much like they did at a Town Council meeting on Dec. 4.

Rocco Risbara, one of the developers of The Downs, said he takes issue with the “one-size-fits-all” approach to the ordinance.

“The Downs is in a growth zone and The Downs and other growth-area projects can be accomplished using the existing regulations that the town and Maine DEP have,” he said. “The setback sounds nice, but it will jeopardize the model projects like The Downs in the future.”

Risbara noted The Downs has affected nearly 3 acres of wetlands so far, but the development has planted roughly 3.1 acres of gravel wetlands with plans of planting 3.4 acres in future phases of the project.

Some property owners were also concerned with how much value their properties could lose if the setbacks were enacted. Dan Dickinson said the setbacks would impact about 4 acres of a 52-acre property he owns and 2-4 acres at his junkyard on Holmes Road.

“I think this ordinance is very aggressive,” he said. “I think we can do better.”

Scarborough resident Tom Nolan said the setbacks ought to be aggressive.

“Why would we not want to be aggressive in protecting the assets that have made Scarborough famous and what makes it attractive and valuable in terms of people coming here to develop in the first place?” he said.

Resident Marvin Gates said the issue boils down to “upland versus lowland” where impacts from developments along wetlands upstream can have adverse effects on properties downstream.

“I feel for the upland developers who feel as though they’re being encroached upon, but you’ve got to consider the lowland people, too, the downstream people and the property owners there,” Gates said, before adding, “You had me at ‘flood control,'” one of the functions of wetlands cited by supporters of the setbacks.

Planning Board member Rick Meinking said the community has already indicated protecting the town’s wetlands is crucial.

“This, to me, aligns very well with the vision our residents have drawn up in the form of the comprehensive plan,” he said, which emphasizes the importance of preserving Scarborough Marsh and the town’s other natural resources.

Board Member Roger Beeley was the sole member to not express support for the proposed 25-foot setbacks on Monday. Town officials noted the town has held meetings with stakeholders ahead of the official proposal, including a meeting with the Scarborough Economic Development Corporation Board of Directors in March, a developer forum in May and a stakeholder roundtable in August.

Another stakeholder roundtable is to be held early next year to discuss changes being considered at the state level, according to Speer, but Beeley said he’d like that to take place before a final decision is made in Scarborough.

“This is going to be a dramatic change, I think,” he said. “Right now, I would not support this until there’s further discussion.”

Planning Board member James Hebert said he would like to see a setback of at least 50 feet rather than 25 before asking Speer what the state’s recommendations for wetland setbacks are.

Speer said the DEP’s position is that a 15-foot vegetated buffer should be required; a 30-foot buffer is recommended; and a 100-foot buffer is considered “ideal.”

“DEP is recommending 30 feet, we’re doing 25,” Hebert said. “We’re not even meeting the minimum recommendation from the DEP.”

Board member Bennett Flanders said he would also support a larger setback.

“Look at last January: we had two enormous floods that caused significant damages,” Flanders said. “Things aren’t going to get better. Things are getting worse and worse and the more we destroy our protected areas, the worse it’s going to get.”

Jennifer Ladd said a “tiered approach” to wetland setbacks could be looked at in the future.

“I am, at a bare minimum, supportive of what is proposed here, but I think we should really have a conversation on how that can be increased in extra sensitive areas,” she said.

Planning Board Chair Rachel Hendrickson said this likely won’t be the last time the town takes on wetland setbacks.

“I support this with the caveat that I consider it the bare minimum that can be done,” she said. “There may be more things to look at, but we need something to start with and it is with this policy, this ordinance.”

The Town Council passed the ordinance at first reading on Dec. 4 and forwarded it to the Planning Board for Monday’s public hearing and recommendation. The council is scheduled to hold its own public hearing on Jan. 8 and is expected to take a final vote on the ordinance at its Jan. 22 meeting.