The Biddeford City Council unanimously approved a series of updates to its comprehensive plan Monday night as a deadline to resubmit the plan for state approval loomed. 

The plan, which the city has been updating since 2023, was initially submitted to the state for approval nearly two years ago. 

But the state rejected the plan because several plan elements were missing, City Planner David Galbraith said, and the Future Land Use Map was deemed “inconsistent” with the state’s Growth Management Act.

Monday was the city’s deadline to submit an updated version of the plan.

If the state again rejects the updated plan, Biddeford could be in danger of losing access to state and federal grants and other state funding.

“There are a few things we give up when we don’t have a sufficient comprehensive plan,” resident Sam Pecor said Monday at a special City Council meeting. “I am very concerned that we may make decisions that would make the state kick back this comprehensive plan.”

Galbraith wrote in a memo to the council that the inconsistencies in the plan were largely caused by staff turnover.

Galbraith said the staff member assigned to reviewing the comprehensive plan left their position in December 2023, shortly after the plan was initially submitted to the state. 

Because of staffing issues in the Planning Department, the project was not restarted until a new staff member was hired, Galbraith wrote. Then, that employee went on leave, further delaying the city’s ability to finalize the plan. 

At Monday’s special meeting, the council addressed the plan’s inconsistencies and identified areas of the city that were not accurately described.

One heavily debated area mentioned in the comprehensive plan was a large area at the end of Barra Road that was classified as a growth area. At a June 16 meeting, Councilor Jake Pierson made a motion to re designate that area as rural farmland, but on Monday night, he rescinded the motion. 

“This went to the planning board and was voted to be a place of growth prior to it coming to the council,” Councilor Marc Lessard said. 

Resident Loren McCready agreed, noting that the area on Barra Road, which is close to Thatcher Brook Watershed, had been flagged by residents as an issue within the plan. 

McCready said Thatcher Brook was not properly described as “urban impaired,” meaning it is polluted because of its proximity to densely populated land.

The revised plan is now off to the Maine Office of Community Affairs for review.