Upstream Watch v. City of Belfast et al., 299 A.3d 25

Upstream Watch (a Maine nonprofit) opposed Nordic Aquafarms’ proposed land-based salmon facility at the Little River in Belfast; Nordic applied for five municipal permits from the Belfast Planning Board.
The Planning Board required party-in-interest statements; Upstream was granted party-in-interest status after submitting a statement and participated extensively in Planning Board hearings.
The Planning Board approved Nordic’s permits on December 22, 2020; Upstream timely filed an appeal to the Belfast Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA).
The ZBA confined its standing inquiry to the limited information on Upstream’s two-page application-to-appeal form (excluding the Planning Board record and later affidavits) and dismissed the appeal for lack of standing.
The Superior Court affirmed; the Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated, holding the ZBA erred by limiting its review and that the administrative record shows Upstream had standing through members who were abutters or whose land would be directly affected.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the ZBA could confine its standing review to the application-to-appeal form	ZBA must consider the full administrative record (including Planning Board record) when deciding standing	ZBA acted within its process and could rely on the appeal form to decide standing	ZBA erred: Ordinance requires the ZBA, when acting appellate, to entertain the entire administrative record, so it could not limit review to the form
Whether Upstream had standing under the municipal Ordinance	Upstream (associationally) has standing because at least one member abuts or has land directly affected by the project; record shows members’ wells, enjoyment, and traffic concerns	City/Nordic argued Upstream failed to show the required particularized injury and thus lacked administrative standing	Held that the Ordinance’s definition of "aggrieved party" does not incorporate a particularized-injury requirement; the administrative record shows at least one member was an aggrieved person, so Upstream had standing

Nergaard v. Town of Westport Island, 973 A.2d 735 (Me. 2009) (analyzes ordinance-specific standing and when a particularized-injury requirement applies)
Friends of Lincoln Lakes v. Town of Lincoln, 2 A.3d 284 (Me. 2010) (discusses associational standing and administrative party status)
Black v. Bureau of Parks & Lands, 288 A.3d 346 (Me. 2022) (stands for de novo review of standing as a question of law)
Norris Fam. Assocs., LLC v. Town of Phippsburg, 879 A.2d 1007 (Me. 2005) (uses Planning Board record to determine abutter standing related to water impacts)
Witham Fam. Ltd. P’ship v. Town of Bar Harbor, 30 A.3d 811 (Me. 2011) (confirms determining standing from Planning Board record)
Sahl v. Town of York, 760 A.2d 266 (Me. 2000) (defines abutter broadly to include nearby property owners)
Fitzgerald v. Baxter State Park Auth., 385 A.2d 189 (Me. 1978) (recognizes standing based on users’ enjoyment of environment)
Dubois v. Town of Arundel, 202 A.3d 524 (Me. 2019) (explains judicial Rule 80B standing requires particularized injury)
Bizier v. Town of Turner, 32 A.3d 1048 (Me. 2011) (deference to municipal fact-findings while reviewing ordinance interpretation)