FARMINGTON — Planning Board members voted unanimously Monday to affirm decisions made by the board this summer, approving a proposed six-unit condominium project near downtown. The decisions were questioned by the town’s Board of Appeals last month.

Appeals members reviewed decisions on the Riverview Condominiums LLC project after abutter Dr. Christie James appealed the Planning Board’s August approval of applications for construction of a six-unit, multifamily building at 223 Main St. The half acre lot, owned by William Marceau, is the site of a former private home that currently houses Marceau’s Foothill’s Management and Development, a hair salon and several apartments.

There were six issues the Board of Appeals was not comfortable with, attorney David Sanders, representing James, told Planning Board members Monday. Those included whether the grandfathered driveway is considered a structure, safety concerns regarding transportation access, harmony with existing historical buildings around the site, lot coverage, vehicle safety and setback distances.

The Board of Appeals needs some help understanding because they didn’t see the whole process taken to reach those decisions, Marceau’s attorney, Brian Raybeck, said. The town has never considered driveways as structures and there’s no definition in the ordinance for lot coverage. Consistency is important, he said.

Planning Board Chairman Clayton King and members Lloyd Smith, Donna Tracy, Timothy Hardy and alternate member Gloria McGraw voted unanimously to affirm their decision to not consider the driveway/parking lot as a structure.

“It’s not fair to consider it on one project out of 25 years of projects,” McGraw said.

Hardy agreed that it’s the way the town has interpreted the ordinance over the years and Smith asserted that a driveway/parking lot could be moved and was not fixed construction like a building.

Sanders, however, had a different opinion.

“If a driveway is not considered as a fixed construction on the ground or in the ground, then I don’t know what is,” he said.

While the town’s ordinances allow 50-percent coverage of a lot, the board affirmed their interpretation that coverage applies to the footprint of the building. Lot coverage without considering the driveway/parking lot keeps it at 23 percent.

“We have no definition of lot coverage,” Code Enforcement Officer Steve Kaiser said of the ordinance.

Sanders asked the board to consider what is more covering than blacktop.

The Board of Appeals considered safety concerns regarding access from Main Street,  Sanders said. The Planning Board didn’t see the need for a traffic study to be done but there is a need, he suggested.

The Planning Board again said it considered the driveway grandfathered or in existence before the town adopted zoning ordinances and that zoning pertained to new driveway construction. They also relied on input from the fire department on safe access.

In this area of town, “there have to be certain exceptions or we’d keep it like it was in the 1800s,” Hardy said of the streets around the downtown.

Considering the harmony of the proposed condominiums with Queen Anne- and Victorian-styled buildings around the site, the board moved to affirm its initial decision.

“There’s a mixed bag of buildings on Main Street,” King said of the Emery Art Center across the street and Franklin Savings along with the modern windmill in James’ backyard.

“Vehicle safety was one of the toughest issues for this board as well as the Appeals Board,” McGraw said of their discussions on driveway width, numbers of vehicles and access for emergency vehicles.

“We felt this applicant met the requirements of the town,” she said. The board agreed.

The board also agreed that as the driveway is grandfathered, setbacks apply to the finished building and this applicant was within the requirements.

[email protected]