Belfast zoning board affirms planning-board findings in Nordic Aquafarms appeal after debates on waste, finance, soils and power

The Belfast Zoning Board of Appeals continued deliberations on Tuesday over consolidated appeals of permits for Nordic Aquafarms, affirming the planning board's decisions on solid-waste handling, financial capacity and soils and finding no error in conditions related to electrical service. The board voted on each contested item and scheduled another meeting to finalize a written notice of decision.

Why it matters: The votes resolve key technical and legal challenges to Nordic's permit package that opponents flagged during the planning-board review — from where construction waste and fish processing residuals would go to whether the project has the financial and utility infrastructure to proceed. The board's determinations keep the appeal on a path back to the planning board for any implementation details and to a final written decision by the appeals board.

Board counsel opened the session by circulating ordinance and permit excerpts and reminding members that the task was to decide whether the planning board had committed an error of law or lacked substantial evidence in its findings. On the solid-waste issue, counsel pointed members to section 90-42(b)(18) and the planning-board findings; appellants argued Nordic had not shown an on-site hazardous-waste management plan or a place for temporary accumulation in storm events. Ed Cotter, a representative of Nordic Aquafarms, said the company had submitted a plan and supporting letters from haulers and composters (attachment 21) and that "we do not have or plan to have anything on-site that qualifies as a hazardous waste under EPA guidelines." After discussion, the board voted to reject the appellant's claim on that point and to affirm the planning-board finding (motion passed unanimously).

On financial capacity and performance guarantees, members reviewed planning-board conditions that phased the project and required updated financial submissions and a possible third-party financial review before later construction phases. Counsel noted that large, capital-intensive projects commonly show conditional financing and that the planning board had included conditions (including performance-bond-type instruments) to ensure the town could call on surety if required. A public commenter, Dave Loesie, said he found no record evidence showing an institution with capacity to underwrite the full financing and urged the board to consider that gap. Board members responded that the planning-board approach — requiring later, time‑relevant financial demonstrations and a mechanism for city review — was typical and adequate; the appeals board voted to uphold the planning-board finding (motion passed unanimously).

The board next addressed whether on-site soils were adequate for the intended heavy-load facilities. Counsel and staff pointed to geotechnical reports in the record (Ransom Engineering; Gilbane Building Company) and explained that soils are commonly stabilized or replaced for large projects. Appellants argued that choosing a site and then replacing its soils undermined the site-selection purpose of the ordinance; the board found the planning board had adequate record evidence and voted to affirm that finding (motion passed unanimously).

Members then considered electrical-service adequacy and how interconnection or off-site upgrades could affect the project and air-emissions conditions. The planning-board conditions link interconnection work and on-site generator use to a minor-source air permit; staff said Nordic had provided an initial interconnection submission but more detail on required off-site improvements and cost responsibility was outstanding. Board members noted that if the project ultimately required heavy reliance on on-site diesel generation it could violate air-permit limitations and force a permit change or enforcement action. The appeals board concluded the planning board had not erred in how it treated electrical-service concerns but recorded one abstention on that vote.

Votes at a glance: - Solid-waste / hazardous waste: motion to affirm planning-board findings that a plan and conditions addressed waste handling — approved (passes unanimously). - Financial capacity: motion to affirm planning-board findings and conditions requiring later financial demonstrations and possible third-party review — approved (passes unanimously). - Performance guarantee (bond/letter-of-credit requirements tied to phases): motion to affirm planning-board approach requiring a 110% performance guarantee for required improvements as a condition — approved (passes unanimously). - Soils adequacy: motion that planning-board record and geotechnical reports show soils (or replacement soils) adequate for intended purpose — approved (passes unanimously). - Electrical service and interconnection: motion that planning-board handling of electrical-service questions was reasonable given the record; motion carried with one abstention.

The board agreed that the next step is to have counsel draft a written notice of decision and circulate it to members and parties in advance of the next meeting; members scheduled the next session (noted in the meeting as the 18th, 6–8 p.m.) to continue detailed review and finalize the document. The board emphasized that some implementation items (detailed interconnection arrangements, exact bond instruments, or updated financing commitments) would be addressed later or returned to the planning board if they changed materially.

Direct quotes in context are drawn from participants in the hearing: Ed Cotter (Nordic Aquafarms) said, "we do not have or plan to have anything on-site that qualifies as a hazardous waste under EPA guidelines." A public commenter, Dave Loesie, said in part, "I don't believe in the record there is any mention of anybody of any institution that has the capacity to make a loan of this sort... That's what I found critically missing here." The appeals board's draft decision will reflect these contentions and the board's reasons; parties will have an opportunity to comment when the draft is circulated.