PARIS – The attorney for a group opposing construction of a Poland Spring Water Co. facility in Fryeburg has argued that the company’s appeal to Oxford County Superior Court is groundless.

Scott Anderson, who represents the Western Maine Residents for Rural Living, states that the judge from a 2006 court appeal on the same matter has not made a final decision, so the new appeal should be dismissed.

Anderson’s motion marks the latest in a conflict between Nestle Waters North America, which owns the Poland Spring label, and the Western Maine residents, who oppose the company’s proposal to install a truck loading facility on Route 302.

Poland Spring first applied for a permit for the facility in 2005, and the project was green-lighted by the Fryeburg Planning Board. However, the decision was later vacated by the Board of Appeals after the Western Maine residents argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the Planning Board determination that the facility wouldn’t unreasonably interfere with neighboring properties.

The proposed facility would load up to four trucks an hour and a maximum of 50 trucks per day with water piped in from a Denmark aquifer. Opponents to the project have said the facility would be a commercial use in a rural residential zone, and have also expressed concern over potential increases in noise, traffic and pollution.

Poland Spring brought the matter to Superior Court in 2006, where Justice Roland Cole remanded the issue to the Planning Board. Cole stated in an order on the case that there was “substantial evidence” that the facility would be non-intensive and not interfere with neighboring properties, but requested that the board determine whether it would constitute a low-impact use.

He defined a low-impact business as “limited in size or amount of traffic” as based on the Fryeburg comprehensive plan.

On Nov. 13, the Planning Board voted that the facility did not constitute a low-impact use. The Board of Appeals upheld the decision on Jan. 28, and Poland Spring has since contested that decision with the court.

Anderson argues that the Board of Appeals decision is not subject to judicial review, but that the court must directly review the Planning Board’s decision. He also asks for Cole to determine whether Poland Spring can challenge the Nov. 13 decision, since Cole did not make a final ruling on the 2006 appeal.

“He (Cole) has not issued a final decision in that case, and any further proceedings regarding the Planning Board’s Nov. 13 decision should be conducted in that case,” Anderson states.

Anderson asks that the new appeal be dismissed “for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or that it be addressed by Cole in relation to the previous appeal.