"We want to continue to offer scholarships to young people, offer more lifeguard training, and make rest rooms available to the public." That's Mimi Fox, executive director of the Kennebunk Beach Improvement Association, quoted in Citizen Portal's report, explaining to the town's Select Board why a 116-year-old children's program on Mother's Beach needs to rebuild a building the town currently won't let it touch.
KBIA runs more than 50 classes each summer for kids ages 2 to 17, out of a waterfront building called Smith House, set on a stretch of shorefront between the open beach and the Cove at Lord's Point. Storm activity and rising tides through 2024 left the organization wanting a structure that sits farther back from a busy Beach Avenue, with room for more classroom space and better resilience against the next storm season. The campaign is called "KBIA 120: Keeping the Legacy Alive," and the plan sounds straightforward: move the building back, build it stronger, keep the charm.
Except under the zoning rule that governs Smith House today, KBIA cannot do that voluntarily. Not without waiting for a storm, a fire, or some other accident to do the demolition first.
The Rule Smith House Ran Into
Kennebunk's zoning ordinance treats a legally nonconforming structure, one built before current setback and dimensional rules existed, as frozen in place. Article 5, Section 5 of the ordinance says that if a nonconforming building is removed by any means other than an accidental cause, it has to be reconstructed to meet all of today's dimensional standards. Accidental cause covers fire, storm damage, and similar events beyond the owner's control. It does not cover a property owner deciding, on their own initiative, to move a building back from an eroding shoreline or elevate it out of a flood zone.
That distinction is the whole story. An owner who wants to improve a nonconforming structure by choice is stuck with its current footprint and location. An owner whose building is lost to a nor'easter has a defined path to rebuilding to modern standards. Under the current wording, the trigger for that path is the loss itself, so a voluntary move back from the water or out of a flood zone falls outside it.
It's Already Happening a Few Streets Over
This isn't a hypothetical for Kennebunk. A Town Planner memo dated March 2, 2026, addressing a property at 7 Valley Ave, shows the rule working exactly as written. The property sits in the Resource Protection and Shoreland Overlay districts, entirely within an AE flood zone at elevation 13. The existing home is nonconforming as to its side and rear lot setbacks. Because the reconstruction there falls under Article 5, Section 5, the applicant had to propose an entirely new location for the new structure on the same lot, just to bring it into compliance with current setbacks. Town Planner Christopher J. Osterrieder noted that single-family dwellings in the Resource Protection district count as a special exception use, meaning the project also needs Planning Board approval under the ordinance's Special Exception standards.
In plain terms: rebuilding a nonconforming shorefront home in Kennebunk right now is not a matter of pulling a permit and swinging a hammer. It's a land-use puzzle that can force a structure to move within its own lot lines, adds a Planning Board review layer, and only unlocks at all once the old structure is gone, whether the owner wanted it gone or not.
The Vote That Started the Clock
According to the Citizen Portal report, Kennebunk's Select Board voted 7 to 0 on August 25, 2026, to send a Planning Board-recommended amendment to Article 5 to public hearing. The proposed change would let owners of nonconforming buildings in the Shoreland Zone and Resource Protection District apply directly to the Planning Board for authorization to reconstruct, without waiting for a fire or storm to force the issue.
Werner Gilliam, speaking for KBIA at the meeting, described the change as "really about process," according to the same report, framing it as a way to let property owners proactively rebuild and improve structures while Planning Board review still applies. That review requirement matters. This isn't a proposal to deregulate the shoreline. It's a proposal to let the same review happen before disaster instead of only after it.
The vote wasn't a rubber stamp on the underlying policy question. Select Board members raised whether the town should first develop a longer-term coastal management or shore plan, even as this specific ordinance change moves toward public hearing. That's a fair question for a town with as much shorefront housing stock as Kennebunk, and it means the amendment's path to a final vote isn't guaranteed to be smooth.
KBIA's own materials describe the goal plainly: get the amendment onto the November 3 ballot, so property owners can pursue voluntary reconstruction for coastal resiliency while the building stays grandfathered on other zoning matters, like property line setbacks. With publication on October 1, that timeline is close. Whether the amendment clears public hearing and lands on the ballot in time is the thing to watch over the next several weeks.
Current Rule vs. Proposed Rule
| Current Rule (Article 5, Sec. 5) | Proposed Amendment | |
|---|---|---|
| Trigger for reconstruction | Building must be removed by accidental cause (fire, storm, etc.) | Owner may apply proactively, no accident required |
| Approval needed | Planning Board approval after the fact, once triggered | Planning Board approval sought before construction begins |
| Owner's ability to relocate on lot | Only after accidental loss | Available on request, subject to review |
| Status as of late September 2026 | In effect | Sent to public hearing after 7-0 Select Board vote, Aug. 25, 2026 |
The Difference Between Expanding and Rebuilding
It's worth separating two things that get talked about interchangeably along the Maine coast: expanding a nonconforming structure and rebuilding one.
Expansion is governed by state law. MPM Law explains that Maine's shoreland zoning regulations cap how much a legally nonconforming structure can grow, generally the greater of 30 percent of its existing footprint or a flat 1,000 square feet, depending on distance from the water. That's a state-level ceiling on size, and it applies whether or not anything has been destroyed.
Reconstruction is a separate question, governed by local ordinance, and it's the one Kennebunk's pending amendment addresses. It has nothing to do with how big a structure can get. It's about whether an owner can voluntarily tear down and rebuild a nonconforming structure at all, without an accident forcing the issue.
A buyer touring a shorefront cottage in Kennebunk this fall could reasonably assume that if the house is legally nonconforming, the state's 30 percent rule is the whole story. It isn't. The state rule sets a size limit. The town's Article 5 sets whether you can act on that limit at all, or whether you're waiting on a storm to unlock it.
What This Means If You're Buying or Selling on the Water This Fall
For a seller with an older, nonconforming shorefront property, this is a different conversation than it would have been a year ago. The honest answer to "can I rebuild this?" now depends partly on a town vote that hasn't happened yet. That's not a reason to delay a sale. It is a reason to be specific with buyers about which rule applies to a given address, and to have the zoning district and flood zone designation ready before the question comes up during due diligence.
For a buyer, the useful move is asking directly whether a property sits in the Shoreland Zone or Resource Protection District, and if so, whether any renovation plans depend on voluntary reconstruction. If they do, the timeline for that plan may hinge on whether Kennebunk voters see this amendment on a ballot this fall, and what shape it takes if they do.
Market context helps frame the stakes without answering them. Kennebunk's median sale price was $610,000 in December 2025, up 2.5 percent year over year. As of September 2026, the town's median list price sits closer to $875,000, with homes averaging 49 days on market across 108 active listings. Those are two different measurements, asking versus closed, and they shouldn't be read as a single trend line. What they do confirm is that shorefront and near-shorefront inventory in Kennebunk carries enough weight in the market that a rule change affecting rebuild rights is not a niche concern. It touches a meaningful share of what's currently for sale.
A Few Questions Worth Asking Before You Write an Offer
Does this rule only apply to buildings like Smith House? No. Article 5, Section 5 applies to any legally nonconforming structure in Kennebunk's Shoreland Zone or Resource Protection District, residential or otherwise. The 7 Valley Ave case shows it applying to an ordinary single-family home.
What happens if the amendment doesn't make the November ballot? The current rule stays in place. Nonconforming structures can only be voluntarily reconstructed after an accidental loss, and any rebuild still has to meet today's setbacks, which can force relocation within the lot, as it did at 7 Valley Ave.
Is this the same as the state's 30 percent expansion rule? No, and conflating the two is an easy mistake. The state rule limits how much a nonconforming structure can grow. The town's Article 5 governs whether an owner can voluntarily rebuild at all. A property can be well within the state's size allowance and still be locked out of rebuilding under the current town ordinance until an accident intervenes.
If you're weighing an offer on an older Kennebunk shorefront property, or thinking about what a rebuild might actually require on a specific address, I'd rather walk the zoning map with you before you're under contract than after. Reach out to Melissa McKersie to talk through what a particular lot's shoreland status means for your plans.
This article is general information, not legal, tax or financial advice. Consult a qualified professional about your situation.
