FARMINGTON — Some decisions made on a proposed condominium project will go back to the Planning Board after the Appeals Board spent more than four hours reviewing them Tuesday.

Charged with determining whether the Planning Board interpreted or misapplied the town’s ordinances correctly in their approval of the Riverview Condominiums LLC project in August, the Zoning Board of Appeals struggled with questions from attorney David Sanders, speaking on behalf of abutter Dr. Christie James.

James has challenged William Marceau’s plans to build a six-unit condominium for ages 55 and older on a Main Street half-acre lot near downtown where Foothills Management and Development is located. The former private home now includes the Foothills office, a hair salon and several apartments.

Marceau’s plans include turning ownership of both the present and future building into the hands of a condominium association.

Several issues raised by Sanders prompted lengthy discussions among the seven-member Appeals Board, which finally decided to send some items back to the Planning Board to reconsider. Those included:

* Whether the driveway is considered a structure;

* Whether transportation access management standards do not apply because it’s grandfathered or in existence before the town adopted zoning ordinances; and

* Whether the plans for the new building are aesthetically harmonious with other Victorian and Queen Anne-style structures around the site.

The Planning Board has never considered driveways or parking lots as structures, Code Enforcement Officer Steve Kaiser said.

Some Appeals Board members, along with Sanders, questioned the definition of structure and whether it applies to driveways.

A paved driveway requires levels of construction and is permanent, board member Michael Deschenes said.

The status of structure for the driveway could alter the lot coverage allowed. Now at 23 percent, the addition of the driveway would raise coverage above the 50 percent allowed.

Although grandfathered, the 8-foot access driveway to both buildings prompted discussion of safety issues for emergency vehicles and additional vehicle use by condominium dwellers. Sanders noted normal ordinance width requirements are 20 feet for a single drive and 24 feet for a two-way drive.

“There’s no question it’s an undersized driveway,” he said.

The driveway meets the standards for a noncomforming structure, Marceau’s attorney, Brian Raybeck, said. 

A noncomforming structure, according to zoning ordinances, cannot be expanded if the expansion affects neighboring properties, Sanders told the Appeals Board.

“It affects James’ property,” he said of the large home used as a doctor’s office and home. The condominiums would overlook her backyard garden and affect her privacy.

 “Who would want that in their backyards?” he asked.

Placing another structure on the half-acre lot between Main and Front streets leaves no breathing room, he said.

“It’s like putting 10 pounds of potatoes in a five-pound bag,” Sanders said.

The board also discussed whether adding the six-unit condominium alters the use of the property. They accepted the Planning Board’s determination that it was used as a multi-family dwelling and would continue that way.

Sanders raised concerns regarding a potential board bias, saying “the Planning Board decided to approve the project then bent or ignored every standard to make it fit.”

Board member Tom Eastler asked for an apology from Sanders and wanted it on the record.

The Planning Board now has the option to either change or affirm their decision. If they affirm what they’ve already ruled on or change it, either James or Marceau has the right to bring the matter back to the Appeals Board.

abryant@sunjournal.com