By Dolores Sauca Lorusso

The planning board approved, with conditions, the site plan for redevelopment of the former Marylou’s building last week, while the team for the redevelopment of the former Aquarium will need to return the end of March for a vote.

Conditions for the site plan for the property at 248 Atlantic Ave. will be agreed upon by the board and discussed with owner Robert Patel.

“We will meet and discuss the conditions, none of which will be a surprise,” said Chair Harry Hibbard.

At the Feb. 22 meeting,  John Chessia of Chessia Consulting Services, the engineer reviewing the project, listed items for the board to consider, including soil testing, alleviating roof runoff, lighting impacts, and a construction plan.

“It is a tight site, so I suggest they have a construction plan before beginning construction,” said Chessia. “Hopefully the road paving of Atlantic Avenue can be coordinated with putting in the utilities, so it does not have to be torn up after being newly paved.”

Chessia also outlined several items the planning board should be attentive to when reviewing the site plan presented by Jonathan Leavitt, a principal of 120 Nantasket Avenue LLC. He pointed out the site plan revisions “picked up some, but they are still a little short on other details…many of which relate to civil engineering.”

According to Chessia, the 21-unit building proposed for the former aquarium site must adhere to stormwater regulations relevant to the buffer zone because it is near a coastal bank across State Park Road.

“Measurements from the beach to the property were taken and they are in the buffer zone, so they will need to file with the conservation commission,” said Chessia. “They will also need to file with the DCR because they are proposing a different use than what has been there.”

“As soon as we get a little bit further along with the final plan we will get into the DCR application,” Project Manager Amy Boehmcke replied. “Consultants will help with the traffic logistic plans needed for the DCR application.”

Leavitt said he has hired Stanley Humphries of Environmental Consulting and Recreation to map out the coastal bank. Leavitt’s attorney, Adam Brodsky, said, “Nothing we are going to do will adversely affect the coastal bank across the street… It is a buffer zone, not wetlands. [We will] need to request determination of applicability.”

Conditions relating to drainage issues were still a concern for both projects. Chessia recommended modifying the roof at 248 Atlantic Ave. to alleviate some of the direct runoff to the pervious pavers.

The aquarium redevelopment project also requires more drainage work.

“The proposed collection of down gradient flow from the hillside needs improvement,” said Chessia. He said “a drain and subdrain were added to the architectural plan, but it doesn’t show where the water goes.”

Planning Board Vice Chair Jeanne Paquin asked about lighting possibly shining in people’s windows. Robert Patel, owner of the Atlantic Hill project, said the “lighting will be recessed in the overhang.”

On the issue of lighting as it relates to the aquarium, abutter Bill Schleiff said he is “worried about the lighting. I can see my paper at night from the lighting on back of the building.”

Chessia replied “they [120 Nantasket Ave LLC] have provided a photometric plan with data on lighting. From what I saw the lighting looks relatively subdued.”

Leavitt offered his assurance that all lighting for the project is “dark-sky compliant, except for the light on the front door facing the DCR lot.”

Written confirmation that the parking spaces at 248 Atlantic Ave. are grandfathered to existing conditions was submitted by Building Inspector Bartley Kelly.

“We know where cars have parked there, all the time we have lived here. If anything, the parking is more amenable now,” said Planning Board Chair Harry Hibbard.

Parking also was a topic of discussion for 120 Nantasket Ave., where, according to Chessia, parking was improved by “making an angle parking arrangement of 80 degrees vs. 90 degrees.” Chessia, who has said he prefers standard-size parking, explained the request for narrower parking spaces allows the elimination of two out of four tandem parking spots near State Park Road, which is already compact. He suggested a mirror be installed there because “it is a solid wood fence and a steep narrow road, so it would be helpful to see better.”

With the narrower spaces, the two additional parking spaces they would have had in tandem, on State Park Road, can fit in the lot below.

“The smallest parking spot is 8.5 x 19 and the requirement is 9 x 20,” Leavitt said. “Not asking for dramatically less, just a few inches less.”

“Parking for this project is so important because in the summer people already park in front of my yard,” Schleiff said. He also brought it to the attention of the board that in the winter, State Park Road closes to traffic. “The saw horses go up because the runoff water freezes and it is not good in the winter,” said Schleiff.

Paquin agreed. “Two parking spaces are up hill, so two vehicles will be using State Park Rd on a daily basis… be forewarned it is a difficult road by nature,” she said.

The developer’s request for a preliminary subdivision also was discussed. Brodsky said the preliminary subdivision was requested “to do one thing and one thing only – freeze zoning. Plan freeze while going through the permitting process.”

“For us to do this, as we have seven affordable housing bylaws being proposed at town meeting, makes no sense whatsoever,” Hibbard replied. “If you could tell me that if the project doesn’t get built, then the protection goes away, then it would make sense to me… Giving you protection from the affordability that would apply beyond your particular project is a problem for us. It is not consistent with town policy.”

The request for the approval of a preliminary subdivision of the lot at 120 Nantasket Ave. was continued until March 8, so further details could be attained. Brodsky believes the “freeze runs with the land” and is going to research if the subdivision “can be crafted to run with the project.” The meeting to vote on the site plan will be held on Wednesday, March 29. The public hearing on the proposed zoning bylaw changes will be held on Wednesday March 22.