FRYEBURG – A battle between Poland Spring and a citizens’ group will be considered by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court after both parties appealed a lower court’s decision.

At issue is a proposed water trucking facility located on Route 302 to fill tanker trucks with spring water piped from an aquifer in Denmark. Poland Spring, which is owned by Nestle Waters North America, proposed the project in 2005.

Poland Spring claims that it has met conditions necessary for construction. Although the permit would allow a maximum of 50 trucks to fill up 24 hours per day, Poland Spring has stated that only 22 trucks would be filled daily for most of the year.

Western Maine Residents for Rural Living opposed the project. The group argues the facility would increase traffic hazards, pollution and noise in the area. The group also asserts that the facility, proposed for a rural residential zone, would be in violation of town ordinances.

A decision by the Planning Board to grant the permit to Poland Spring was vacated after the Western Maine Residents took it to the Board of Appeals. The decision was remanded to the Planning Board by the Oxford County Superior Court after a Poland Spring appeal, with the stipulation that the board would determine if the proposed facility would be “low impact” in accordance with the town’s Comprehensive Plan.

In November, the Planning Board determined that the facility would not represent a low-impact use, and the issue was returned to the court after an unsuccessful Poland Spring appeal to the town.

In a decision in Superior Court, Justice Roland Cole rejected arguments from the Western Maine Residents that the appeal should be dismissed, as well as a request to revisit the 2005 decision due to a perceived conflict of interest by the Planning Board chairman.

Western Maine Residents had argued that former chairman Gene Bergoffen failed to disclose ties to the trucking industry in the 2005 decision.

Cole also rejected a Poland Spring request for the court to reconsider its decision to remand the issue to the Planning Board, but said the request has been retained for appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court. Poland Spring had argued that the court remand did not fully consider the Comprehensive Plan and led to “arbitrary decision-making” by the Planning Board.

Cole stated that “the sole question before the Court is whether the Planning Board abused its discretion, made an error of law, or made findings not supported by substantial evidence in the record in concluding that the proposed facility was not a low impact use under the Comprehensive Plan.”

Cole determined that the language in the Comprehensive Plan was not “unconstitutionally vague,” as asserted by Poland Spring, and upheld the Planning Board’s November decision that the facility does not constitute a low impact use.

In the notice of appeal, Poland Spring states that the issues of appeal are whether the Superior Court made an error in the decision to remand and if the Planning Board made a decision “in excess of its authority” by concluding that the facility was not low impact.

In a statement of issues on appeal, Western Maine Residents attorney Scott Anderson lists five possible Superior Court mistakes for consideration, including court conclusions that the facility qualifies as an “omitted use” under the town’s land use ordinance and that the facility would not interfere with abutting properties.