Belfast zoning board finds planning board had sufficient title showing to process Nordic Aqua Farms permits; later court ruling not held to retroactively void "

The Belfast Zoning Board of Appeals continued deliberations on a consolidated appeal involving five permits for Nordic Aqua Farms and provisionally determined that the planning board had sufficient evidence of "right, title and interest" (RTI) in the materials it considered when it processed the applications.

Board counsel, identified in the record as Attorney Pottle, told members the issue breaks into two questions: whether the planning board had an adequate RTI showing at the time it ruled, and whether a subsequent Law Court ruling (referred to in the meeting as the "Mabee" decision) or later state agency actions should change that prior finding. "You still will need to look at what did the planning board have in front of them? Was that sufficient or insufficient for the purposes of demonstrating right title and interest?" Pottle said, urging members to focus first on the threshold RTI question.

Members discussed the operative documents the planning board relied on, including an Easement Purchase and Sale Agreement dated Aug. 6, 2018, and a March 3, 2019 letter that counsel said clarifies that the easement area includes intertidal rights. Joanna Turanjo, attorney for Nordic Aqua Farms, said both documents "were included in Nordic's original application to the planning board and are on the City of Belfast website as part of that original document in the RTI section." Dave Perkins, representing appellant Upstream Watch, urged the board to consider additional record materials, including a survey report by Donald Richards that he said showed the opposing landowner did not own the intertidal area.

After discussion, the board voted on a preliminary motion that the planning board had a reasonable basis in the record to proceed with the applications; the chair characterized that vote as passing. Later, on a separate formal motion, the board unanimously adopted a finding that the subsequent Law Court decision should not retroactively alter how the planning board processed the applications at the time because the planning board lacked knowledge of that later outcome when it acted.

Counsel and members then turned to permit conditions (notably "condition 37.1" and related clauses) that the planning board included to address ongoing litigation and potential post‑decision events. Attorney Pottle said those conditions may contain "an enforcement flavor" and suggested the board consider whether any contested conditions were actually within the scope of this appeal or whether a remand to the planning board would be the appropriate path to clarify or revise conditional language.

Brenda Chandler, CEO of Nordic Aqua Farms, told the board from a business perspective that Nordic still sees the permits as valid but will not begin construction until the company can either demonstrate intertidal rights or seek an amendment that avoids reliance on the intertidal zone. "We still, in our minds, have valid permits," Chandler said, adding that the project is paused by design until the ownership and access issues are resolved.

The board scheduled follow‑up deliberation sessions in September (provisionally Sept. 4, Sept. 10 and Sept. 18 in evening slots) and requested that the planning board’s attorney be present at the next meeting to help explain the rationale behind the planning board’s conditional language. The board emphasized this was not the end of deliberations; members said additional record review and possible remand could follow.

The meeting closed after members agreed to the dates and to continue work on remaining issues at the scheduled sessions.