KENNEBUNKPORT — A judge at York County Superior Court in Alfred has ruled in favor of Kennebunkport in the town’s claim for public recreational use of Goose Rocks Beach, saying that the public has established that right through its longtime use.
Judge G. Arthur Brennan’s decision sides with the position maintained by the town, saying that the beach had been used publicly for at least 100 years.
“This is a great victory for the residents of Kennebunkport and the Goose Rocks community,” said Kennebunkport Town Manager Larry Mead, in a statement issued Tuesday. “The decision is an affirmation that people have, for generations, shared this unique natural resource as a community and have done so without the need to separate owners from others.”
Plaintiff Robert Almeder said the case will be appealed to Maine’s highest court. Almeder, who was one of 29 plaintiffs in the case, said he believes the town is trying to commercialize the beachfront property.
In August, Kennebunkport voters approved a town ordinance delineating appropriate uses for the beach, representing a compromise between the town, which wanted to keep the beach public, and beachfront homeowners, who claimed that their property rights extended to the beach itself.
In the struggle between public use and privacy, the ordinance establishes a 25-foot swath of beach in front of each property that is essentially under the homeowners’ control; regular beach use by the public is allowed outside of these zones, and a Beach Advisory Committee will be created in order to mediate disputes that may arise.
The ordinance also established a beach maintenance fund for general upkeep of the beach, which requires the town to contribute $2,000 for every Goose Rocks resident who has signed onto the beach use agreement. The fund will be presented to voters as a budget item at the annual Town Meeting, and will be replenished each year, although the amount of money replenished will be based on how much the town had drawn from the account the previous year.
Brennan’s decision is the culmination of a trial that began on Aug. 20. According to court documents, 66 witnesses testified.
“None of the witnesses testified that they asked for, or thought they needed to ask for, permission from beachfront owners to engage in ordinary recreation activities such as walking, swimming or beach games,” wrote Brennan in his decision. “Beachfront owners did not object to the use of their property for ordinary beach-type recreational activities.
“Nearly every witness expressed the view that they had a right to use the beach for ordinary recreational purposes,” wrote Brennan.
In his decision, Brennan denied the town’s counterclaim seeking to establish a prescriptive easement with respect to each parcel owned by the plaintiffs. “There is no Law Court case clearly recognizing that an easement can be acquired through custom,” he wrote.
Still, Mead claimed it as a victory for the town, and in his statement gives recognition to Kennebunkport voters for authorizing the expenditure of tax dollars for the town’s defense, as well as town attorneys from Portland-based firm Drummond Woodsum.
“The beach has been enjoyed by all,” said Mead, “and with this decision, will continue to be enjoyed by future generations of residents and visitors.”
— The Associated Press contributed to this story. Staff Writer Jeff Lagasse can be contacted at 282-1535, Ext. 319 or jlagasse@journaltribune.com.
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less