HARPSWELL

With a meeting about town funding pending between Harpswell officials and Cedar Beach/Cedar Island Supporters, litigation continues after the nonprofit’s court victory over beach access.

In September, Superior Court Justice Nancy Mills ruled in favor of plaintiff group CB/CIS in a case brought against defendants Charles and Sally Abrahamson and Betsy Atkins’s company Gables Real Estate LLC. The ruling granted an easement down private Cedar Beach Road to nearby beach areas on Bailey Island.

The defendants have filed a motion to amend, which, according to Christian Chandler of Curtis Thaxter, the attorney representing Atkins’s company, is a technical motion requesting additional findings of fact.

“We’re looking for additional definitions as to the scope of the ease- ment,” said Chandler. “We asked the court to limit it to pedestrian traffic, however the court chooses to define that.”

CB/CIS filed in opposition to the defendants’ motion, claiming the defendants proposed changes to the ruling are “incomplete, and therefore misleading,” according to opposition to the motion.

“We would agree if they sought a clarification that our prescriptive easement did not allow cars down the road, but it is more than that,” said CB/CIS president Mike Helfgott. “The narrow term they use is ‘walking’ — it excludes bicycles, and perhaps even strollers and wheelchairs.”

“The definition is usually confined to using your feet to get somewhere, but the court may rule that walking a bicycle is pedestrian traffic,” said Chandler. “I believe pushing a stroller or use of a wheelchair would be considered pedestrian in any event.”

The defendants’ motion requested that the easement be limited to pedestrian traffic “for the purpose of going to Cedar Beach,” which Helfgott said could also limit the use of the road to access beaches adjacent to Cedar Beach.

“The case we put out there was broader than just Cedar Beach,” said Helfgott. “People provided testimony that they went down the road to get to several beaches in that area, including the large and small Cedar Beach, and what is known as Merry’s Cove beach.”

According to the plaintiff ’s motion, both a large and small beach are called Cedar Beach, and, “The motion appears to be an attempt on the part of defendants to limit the prescriptive easement rights of the public to travel to the large beach only …”

“The plaintiff group is really trying to raise this to an alarmist pitch, which it really is not,” said Chandler. “We’re just asking the court for clarification.”

“We will be appealing the ruling regardless” of the outcome of the standing motions, said Chandler.

CB/CIS has spent nearly $200,000 in legal fees to date, said Helfgott, noting that legal fees include court and mediation costs in addition to attorney fees.

According to the minutes from the Board of Selectmen’s Oct. 2 meeting, Helfgott requested access for CB/CIS to some of the funding provided by the town for an easement acquisition for access to Cedar Beach at the 2013 annual Town Meeting.

In May 2013, the town approved article 12 on the Town Meeting warrant to authorize the issuance of up to $220,000 “for the acquisition of a public access easement in Cedar Beach Road … to be acquired by deed(s) form, or a final court order confirming a public access easement …”

None of the amount authorized has been expended to date, and the authorization will expire on Dec. 31, 2014.

Harpswell’s attorney, Amy Tchao of Drummond Woodsum, advised town officials that a new warrant article would likely be required to release funds to CB/CIS, said Town Administrator Kristi Eiane, as the language of the previous article did not contemplate the reimbursement of legal fees.

“I expect to be scheduling a meeting with the selectmen very soon to talk about our standing vis-a-vis accessing the funds already authorized on our behalf,” said Helfgott, or if the group will have to request another warrant article for the 2015 Town Meeting.

“From the get-go there were two ways that both the town and our group envisioned we would be successful,” said Helfgott. “The first way would be that we could negotiate with the landowners and purchase an easement.

“The second way is through a court judgment,” he said. “I think we all recognize that the second way involves, almost exclusively, legal fees.”

With the current motions and pending appeal, Helfgott said he expects an additional $100,000 to $150,000 in legal fees could accrue over the coming year or two before a final decision is awarded.

“I’m concerned about how financially stressed some of our supporters are,” said Helfgott, noting that the group has fundraised roughly $200,000 to date. “I know that some of them who care dearly about this issue have already contributed beyond their means.

“I think there is a spirit of cooperation on the part of the selectmen — they are looking for a way forward and I appreciate that,” said Helfgott. “It is a risk to us to allow letting the current warrant article expire, but given the good faith we’ve been shown, we’re willing to talk about it.”

The Times Record Sustaining Sponsor
We believe a community must be informed to thrive. bowdoin.edu