FARMINGTON – The appeals board will hear arguments from attorneys about disputed renovations to a home on High Street on Monday.

In October, Mark and Heidi Goodwin agreed in court to temporarily cease further construction on a duplex at 247 High St.

Disputes arose initially when the Planning Board approved the Goodwins’ plans to convert the High Street duplex into a four-unit dwelling in September 2003. Nearby residents Rod Prior, Holly Price and Ralph and Judith Granger appealed the decision, which the appeals board sent back to the Planning Board for reconsideration saying that it neglected to adequately consider the plan’s impact on the neighborhood.

In April, the Goodwins withdrew their application, but construction continued on the home.

Ralph Granger asked the Goodwins about the construction and was told “you won,” but that they were doing foundation work, according to Granger’s attorney David Sanders.

“Unbeknownst to us, the Goodwins went to Kaiser,” Sanders said in a recent interview, referring to Steve Kaiser, the town’s code enforcement officer. He said they assumed nothing substantial was going to happen without their being told.

Kaiser said he met with the Goodwins in December and reviewed possible options should their initial proposal fail. In a letter dated Dec. 22, 2003, Kaiser spelled out three possible options that in his opinion would not, by statute, require Planning Board approval. The Goodwins chose to pursue option two: to continue using the structure as a duplex, adding bedrooms in the attached barn.

When neighbors Holly Price and Rod Prior went to Kaiser’s office in August, he told them of the Goodwins’ plan and gave them copies of pertinent materials, asking them to distribute them to other interested parties.

Sanders argues that the Goodwins’ duplex is a nonconforming building, subject to different standards than conforming ones. Kaiser does not dispute this fact.

A letter from Frank Underkuffler, the town’s attorney, to Kaiser dated Jan. 30, 2004, analyzed Kaiser’s recommendations to the Goodwins.

In regard to the second option, he wrote: “This would seem an expansion of use within a nonconforming structure resulting from an increase in the floor area, land area or cubic volume occupied by the particular use.” However, he said that expansion of use of nonconforming structures does not require approval by the Planning Board or code enforcement officer.

He continued, “An opponent of option two might argue that the off-street parking standards are triggered. But that expansive interpretation of (the statute) would really open Pandora’s box. Virtually any internal remodeling of any existing structure from, for example, storage to residential space, whether the structure was conforming or nonconforming, would set off the parking standards.”

Parking standards from an expected increase in residents in the building is exactly the issue that concerns the Goodwins’ neighbors.

Sanders said he believes the proposed construction is an expansion of use of a nonconforming structure.

“Our position is that they need to go to the Planning Board,” he said.

He also feels that local residents should have been notified of the meetings between the Goodwins and Kaiser as well as the Goodwins’ decision to go ahead with one of Kaiser’s suggestions.

But Kaiser disputes that claim.

“I wasn’t trying to hide anything,” he said of Sanders’ allegations.

“They’re looking to usurp our authority,” he said after the court hearing. “It is not an expansion and not an accessory use; the barn is part of the duplex,” he said.