Reprint of "Readers' Forum" published in April 23. 2016 Journal Tribune, Biddeford, Maine. This document was signed by the eight Plaintiffs who have appealed the Planning Board decision approving the grist mill construction and development of the park.

There were several misleading statements and important omissions in the story, “Rebuilding of historic grist mill begins” published in the April 13, 2016 Journal Tribune.

The Kennebunkport Conservation Trust secured the property on Mill Lane in Kennebunkport’s historic residential zone in 2006, following a public and private fund raising campaign. At that time, the Trust represented its goal as preservation of one of the last open spaces along the Kennebunk River with the statement that the land would be preserved as open space forever.

The article contains the comment that the Trust “…had always intended to rebuild the iconic structure…,” a concept attributed later in the story to a staff member of the Trust. This is either untrue or is evidence of deceit on the part of the KCT. During 2005 and 2006 when the Trust was seeking funds from the public and from private sources to secure the land, no public mention was made about constructing a grist mill. No development of any kind was suggested aside from installing a ramp and floats for non-motorized boat launching into the Kennebunk River.

In 2005, the Trust Executive Director, met with over 30 neighbors seeking their approval and soliciting money for the land purchase. He explicitly stated that the land would remain as a public open space and mentioned nothing about building a replica grist mill.

It was not until 2008 that the Trust announced acceptance of a $5 million gift which included $1.5 million to build a replica grist mill on this conserved land. This was the first public statement by the KCT that acknowledged their intentions to develop the open space park land into a tourist attraction and gift shop.

The real story here isn’t about the ersatz construction of a building which can never be replaced but about the ethical and moral dilemma created by a land conservation organization which has turned into the developer of land it promised to preserve as conserved public space for future generations.

It is correct that, in a split decision, the Kennebunkport Planning Board voted to approve the project. However, the legitimacy of that zoning decision has been appealed to Maine Superior Court where it is still pending judicial review.

This effort by a land conservation organization to develop one of the last publicly accessible lots along the Kennebunk River – a project the KCT called a “tourist attraction” in an application to one state permitting agency - has become controversial. The construction is opposed by many people who live in the community as well as in neighboring towns, including the person who is generally believed to be Kennebunkport’s town historian, Joyce Butler.

MILL LANE PARK IS NOW BEING DEVELOPED

A MESSAGE ABOUT THE STATUS OF 8 MILL LANE, ALSO CALLED MILL LANE PARK OR GRIST MILL PARK, FROM THE PLAINTIFFS


The Kennebunkport Conservation Trust has started the development of the former grist mill site along the Kennebunk River. A video has been posted on youtube which can be viewed using the search term "Mill Lane Park Development April 2016" on the youtube site.

Earth moving equipment was delivered to the site on April 1. The removal of shrubs and the large maple tree began on April 4.

You are receiving this email because you have shown an interest in preventing the development of this property, which was purchased by the Kennebunkport Conservation Trust in 2006 to be held in conservation forever, or, until now.

The pending appeal of the Planning Board decision does not prevent the land developer, Kennebunkport Conservation Trust, from starting their project to build a replacement grist mill and parking lot. However, the Trust begins this development at their own risk. A Superior Court judge has the authority to overturn the Planning Board decision and instruct the property owner to restore the land to its pre-development state, should the Planning Board decision be overturned.

We thank you for your support.

Jon Eagleson and Susan Graham, Susan Graesser, Lora McGrath, C. Evan Stewart and Jenifer B. Stewart, Pete Warren and Gretchen Huber Warren