FARMINGTON — Construction of a six-unit condominium project at 223 Main St. has come to a halt: The Appeals Board disagreed Wednesday with the Planning Board’s decision on one of six issues.

The next step for Farmington Riverview LLC developer William Marceau is to seek a Superior Court overturn of the Appeals Board decision on that one issue of concern, vehicle safety.

Marceau was considering his options Thursday and appeared optimistic about the potential outcome.

The Planning Board in August approved applications for the condominiums, to be built behind Marceau’s Foothills Management and Development building on Main Street. Abutter Christie James appealed the board’s approval of the condominiums for people ages 55 and older to be built on a half-acre lot.

After reviewing James’ appeal, the Appeals Board sent six items back to the Planning Board to reconsider. The items were: whether a driveway is considered a structure, lot coverage, harmony with other structures around the site, whether transportation access management standards do not apply because the driveway is grandfathered, vehicle safety and setbacks.

The Planning Board in January unanimously reaffirmed its decision. James brought her issues back to the Board of Appeals on Wednesday for a decision. Members voted 3-3 on five of the six issues, which meant the appeal did not carry on those.

When the town’s ordinances appear ambiguous or do not specifically state definitions, “courts say rule in favor of the property owner,” Appeals Board member Michael Deschenes said prior to the votes. He, along with Dennis O’Neil and Chairman Galen Dalrymple, opposed the appeal. Members Sally Clark-Utans, Robert Vallette and Lawrence Yeaton supported granting the appeal on each issue.

But they voted 5-1 on the vehicle safety issue, with the majority disagreeing with the Planning Board, which twice approved the plan.

It had been vetted by engineers, who discussed who would use the driveway and the quantity of use. And the plan had been approved by the town’s fire chief, Marceau’s attorney, Brian Rayback, told the Appeals Board.

“There’s quite a bit of evidence in the record, whether you agree or not,” Rayback said.

Although grandfathered, the 8-foot access driveway was intended for a single-family home and wouldn’t be safe, countered James’ attorney, David Sanders.

There’s also no evidence to support the supposition that because the condominiums are intended for ages 55 and over, they would drive less and create less traffic in and out, he said.

“It’s not the the job of the Planning Board to start with a conclusion and justify it,” he said.

The Appeals Board lacked the benefit of going to the site to see and discuss the plans, as the Planning Board did, Rayback said.

The matter is now out of the town’s process of applications and appeals. While the town’s ordinances survived the scrutiny of the appeal, there is now an opportunity for the town to go back and add more definitions to the zoning ordinances, Code Enforcement Officer Steve Kaiser said Thursday.

By its vote, the Appeals Board acknowledged what the Planning Board has considered all along that driveways and parking lots are not structures and that only buildings are counted in lot coverage, he said.

[email protected]