Special to the Journal Tribune

ARUNDEL — After two months of debate, the Planning board voted Thursday to approve removing the dam on Goff Mill brook near the Kennebunkport line.

“We appreciate all the time and effort,” Project Manager Jacob Aman said after the decision was handed down. “We are certainly not insensitive to all the concerns that have been raised … I have hope community members will realize the great benefits.”

The application of Mary Castnor to do the project was supported by the Wells Estuarine Reserve, who hoped to return the area to an estuarine habitat and support fish passage, though several residents throughout the process argued that releasing the impoundment would negatively impact views and the current habitat.

The Wells Reserve submitted documentation demonstrating that reconnecting the saltwater tidal habitat with the freshwater one that winds several miles through Arundel would reintroduce sea-run fish, like blueback herring and atlantic shad, into the ecosystem and broaden the fish supply in the food chain.

The dam’s current form dated back to around midcentury, when Castnor’s father poured concrete to create a swimming pool for his children, though residents and the Arundel Historical Society pointed out that dams on the site dated back hundreds of years. Castnor was questioned by the Planning Board during the public hearing as to whether she really wanted the dam to be removed, and submitted a letter that was read during Thursday night’s meeting.

“I was surprised by and unprepared for the comments by several of my neighbors,” Castnor’s letter said, which went on to say that “the beauty and quiet (her neighbors) enjoy is the direct result of my family’s conservation.”

A letter submitted by John and Judy Andrews, who at the previous meeting read a list of species that she had identified along the habitat, advocated for the application to be denied, and listed further species that Judy felt would be threatened.

“Once we have lost it it will be gone,” the letter reads. “Maybe we should raise money and repair the dam.”

However, a letter and sources submitted by the project agent, Jacob Aman of the Wells Reserve, rebutted those claims.

“As we have previously stated, this project would not have our support … unless there was clear benefit to fish and wildlife,” Aman said. His letter included a brief by a biologist familiar with the black crowned heron, which made it clear the dam removal would not impact the heron’s habitat.

Despite all the heated debate over the changes to the upstream habitat, in remarks made by the Planning Board before taking the unanimous vote, members made it clear that the science had little bearing on their decision. Property rights, said der Kinderen, were his chief concern.

“Having listened to all the testimony that there will be ecological impact, I’m not conviced it will be positive, I’m not convinced it will be negative,” der Kinderen said. “We have to understand the property owner has the right to remove this dam.”

Planning Board Chair Richard Ganong agreed, saying that when he first heard the proposal to return the stream to precolonial run, it “totally turned me off, I didn’t see any justification,” but noted that this was “someone’s personal property” and it was the Planning Board’s responsibility only to ensure that neighbors would not be negatively affected.