Board denies five administrative appeals, adopts written decision and schedules separate code-enforcement hearing

At the meeting, the board voted unanimously to deny five consolidated administrative appeals challenging the planning board’s conditional approvals and then adopted an updated written notice of decision.

Staff counsel (S3) told members the board had consolidated review of five appeals and circulated a redlined draft notice with substantive language added on a procedural due-process claim. Counsel recommended two formal actions: a single vote on the five appeals and a separate vote to adopt the written notice of decision, noting the requirement that a written decision be adopted within seven days of a vote. "The board moved to deny all 5 administrative appeals regarding the planning board's decision to conditionally approve" (permits listed), S3 said as he summarized the suggested motion.

The motion to deny the appeals was offered by Committee member (S2) and seconded by the Chair (S1); the Chair called for a voice vote and reported the motion carried unanimously. The denied permits cited in the motion included the zoning use permit, site plan permit, significant groundwater wells permit, significant water-intake and discharge outfall permit, and the shoreland zoning permit. After the disposition vote, the board voted to accept the written notice of decision as modified; members were asked to sign a signature page so the document could be provided to all parties, including statutorily required recipients.

Members asked about what happens next. S6 asked whether the planning board must take further steps; counsel (S3) clarified the board’s denial concludes this appellate review but that parties retain judicial appeal rights: "That would be the next step, in terms of the appeal process," S3 said. Counsel and members noted the planning board’s permit conditions remain in the record, and any further changes to the project would be separate from this board’s action.

The board also handled scheduling for a separate appeal that is not part of this consolidated review — described by counsel as concerning a permit-expiration issue and an action or nonaction by the code-enforcement officer. Members and staff discussed multiple January date options and time blocks for that hearing (proposed dates included Jan. 6, 9, 14, 15, 28 and 29, with 3–5 p.m. and 6–8 p.m. blocks under consideration). Counsel and a representative for Nordic Aqua Farms (Ed Carter, S7) discussed exchanging position papers in advance so the board would have both parties’ arguments before the first hearing. The board approved a motion authorizing the chair to work with legal counsel to establish a pre-hearing submission schedule for the code-enforcement appeal (motion moved by S2, seconded by S4).

The meeting concluded after members confirmed signing logistics and thanked counsel and staff for preparing the updated draft notice of decision. The next procedural steps are distribution of the signed written notice to parties and the possibility of judicial appeal by the appellants; final scheduling of the separate code-enforcement hearing will be communicated to parties once availability is confirmed.