FARMINGTON – The Appeals Board voted 4-1 to ask the Planning Board if a Perham Street property needs a site review before it can be converted for use by a youth outreach group.

Appeals Board members took the action Wednesday night after more than an hour of discussion.

If Planning Board members decide it needs site review, the youth program proposed for the property at 147 Perham St. will be more closely investigated by the board and community before it can be approved.

A neighbor, Jim Andrews, said he hopes the Planning Board votes for the site review, not because he opposes the youth outreach program, but because he wants to make sure it is being done right. Andrews asked the Appeals Board to review the Planning Board’s decision in October.

The property is now a duplex rental. Lewiston-based New Beginnings plans to buy the property and rent the two apartments to participants in its community living program, which provides housing and support services to young adults at risk of homelessness, Executive Director Bob Rowe said.

But while the Planning Board and New Beginnings think the use of the building for residential apartments will not constitute a change if the outreach program buys it, Andrews, who is also a Franklin County assistant district attorney, and other neighbors disagree.

Wednesday’s discussion hinged on the legal definitions separating the property’s current use as residential rental property from uses requiring site plan review – educational, institutional or public, according to the town zoning ordinance.

Group homes, hospices, nursing homes and community living facilities like foster homes and intermediate care facilities fit under the educational, institutional or public category in the ordinance.

Appeals Board members heard arguments from both sides, as well as from audience members, for more than an hour. On one side, Andrews argued the New Beginnings house needs site review because it will be a community living facility. On the other, New Beginnings attorney Darcy Beaudin argued it will operate the same as a residential rental property and should be treated as such.

In the end, the board decided it didn’t have enough information to make a decision, and sent the case back to the Planning Board to be discussed further.

“We’re very disappointed,” Rowe said as he left. “This has been a long-delayed process, and it’s getting cold outside.” He is worried about what will become of local kids at risk for homelessness, he said.

“There seems to be a lot of confusion on the part of the city about what their own rules are, and we think it’s time they figured them out,” he added.

“I’d have preferred it if they had made an up or down vote,” Perham Street resident Richard Morton said. But he was happy the board will have to take another look, he said. He hopes board members will vote for a site review.

Andrews and his wife, Claire Andrews, said they were pleased with Wednesday’s vote.

“I’m glad it’s going to get another review,” Claire Andrews said. “It’s not that we don’t want the organization there.”

The issue, Andrews said, is about making sure the people who live there are given the kind of care they need, so they can be successful, and not a danger to the community.

The building is close to Mallett School and young children often walk home from school past the apartment house. Neighbors want to make sure convicted sex offenders or felons aren’t going to be placed there by New Beginnings, she said.

If the tenants are young mothers with kids, for example, who only need budgeting and parenting-class services, local residents will be clamoring to bring them over for casseroles, Andrews said. “We want this to work, if it’s coming in.”