PARIS – Paperwork is piling up in a showdown between Poland Spring Water Co. and a residential group in Fryeburg, with several motions and four binders of documents submitted to Oxford County Superior Court.

Poland Spring, which is owned by Nestle Waters North America, has filed an appeal asking the court order the Fryeburg Planning Board to grant a permit for a water trucking facility on Route 302.

The facility, which was proposed in 2005, would fill up to 50 trucks per day with spring water piped in from Denmark, although Poland Spring states that only 22 trucks would be filled per day during eight months of the year. The facility is opposed by Western Maine Residents for Rural Living, a group that contends the Poland Spring operation does not represent an allowed use for a rural residential zone and would increase traffic hazards, noise, and pollution.

The permit was initially granted by the Planning Board, but overturned by the Board of Appeals. The issue went to court in 2006, when Justice Roland Cole remanded it to the Planning Board to determine if the facility constituted a low-impact use, defined as “limited in size or amount of traffic,” as determined by the town’s comprehensive plan. The board decided last year that the facility did not meet the requirements, and the Board of Appeals upheld the decision earlier this year.

Scott Anderson, representing the Western Maine Residents, has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the Board of Appeals decision is not subject to review by the court. Alternatively, he argues that Cole has not made a final ruling in the 2006 appeal and should do so with regard to the new municipal decisions.

Poland Spring has filed a memorandum in response to the motion, stating that Cole did not expressly retain jurisdiction in the matter. The company also argues that it is appealing the Planning Board’s decision and mentioned the Board of Appeals only as a way of demonstrating that it had gone through the correct appeals process.

“Any other course of action would have been dismissed as a failure to exhaust administrative remedies,” the memorandum states.

In a reply to the memorandum, the Western Maine Neighbors retain the argument that Poland Spring does not state a claim for relief against the Planning Board decision. They also argue that Cole “implicitly retained jurisdiction over the case.”

Poland Spring has also filed a 25-page brief arguing that the court erred in its original decision because the low-impact requirement refers to the town’s comprehensive plan rather than its land use ordinance. The company states that the comprehensive plan’s language regarding low-impact use is “vague and unworkable when applied as a permitting criteria, as evidenced by the Planning Board’s confusion on remand.”

Poland Spring further argues that the court order led to “arbitrary decision-making” on the part of the Planning Board, and that its decision that the facility did not meet the definition of a low-impact use was “based on something other than the specific traffic and access standards of the ordinance.”

According to the brief, the board previously determined the facility to be “non-intensive” under the land use ordinance.

In their reply to the memorandum, the Western Maine Neighbors contend that the allegation of a wrongful decision by the court “appears to be an attempt at forum shopping in order to avoid any further review by Justice Cole.”

The group has also motioned to continue the briefing schedule in order to resolve the motion to dismiss, saying that advancing the case will “incur gratuitous litigation costs that may ultimately be unnecessary.”

Poland Spring opposes the motion, describing it as “nothing more than a delaying tactic, burdensome not only to Poland Spring but to this court.”