FRYEBURG – In the latest move in the struggle with bottled water giant Nestle Waters North America, selectmen have decided to defend the town against a lawsuit over a loading facility on Route 302.
“It was discussed at executive session,” Selectman David Knapp said Monday. “The decision was made to ask Mr. Hill whether he would be retained in this matter.”
Attorney Michael Hill served as counsel for the town’s appeals board, which decided last month that the Planning Board could not permit a 1,300-square-foot facility in East Fryeburg.
The loading facility is envisioned as one step in a water-gathering production that would draw from a Denmark aquifer and pump water to the Fryeburg facility, about three miles away. At most, 50 trucks a day could fill up with water at the loading facility to bring to bottling plants elsewhere.
Earlier in February, Nestle, which owns Poland Spring Water Co., appealed the appeals board’s decision to Oxford County Superior Court. Selectmen had the authority to answer the suit or not.
Nestle has argued that it is promoting a clean, natural-resource-based business, which representatives have said is allowable in this particular site based on Fryeburg’s zoning ordinances.
But many townspeople have opposed the facility, claiming the trucks would increase traffic hazards and that the operation would diminish property values. Others have questioned letting a corporation profit from a local aquifer.
The case in Fryeburg is part of a larger expansion into Western Maine for Nestle and consequently is being watched closely. Nestle has said it must grow to stay competitive in the bottled water industry.
When the Planning Board ruled in October that the facility was permissible, neighbors appealed its decision to the town’s appeals board. This board met twice in January, ultimately siding with the neighbors, loosely affiliated in a group called Western Maine Residents for Rural Living.
Up to this point, Western Maine Residents for Rural Living has provided the greatest thrust of opposition to the facility. But it is now stepping away from the fight, according to one of its members.
Scott Gamwell said last week, “Our resources are pretty much shot to pursue this to the Superior Court.” The group had been represented by attorney Philip Merrill of Appleton. “If we had the resources, we could continue it and file some cross claims.”
Although the appeals board ultimately voided the Planning Board’s permit, it did not agree on several of the arguments Merrill made, including alleged communication improprieties between the Planning Board and Nestle.
“There are a lot of people who think we’re doing the right thing, but handling legal costs is another matter,” Gamwell said.
Comments are no longer available on this story