SAUGUS — Conversations about Kowloon Restaurant’s future apartments continue with a presentation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, joining a series of meetings that have been ongoing since 2022 and leading to another continuance by the board.

Attorney Richard Magnan is representing the Wong Family, saying that they have now been in the site plan and master plan review process with the Planning Board for two years. The Planning Board informed them that before they could act, the applicant would need to go to the zoning board for variances “that appeared to be required.”

Paul Marchionda of Marchionda & Associates presented detailed plans to the board, noting that as Building #1 is constructed, the existing Kowloon will continue to operate.

“Once that building is done, the Kowloon will move into a temporary Kowloon in this building (#1) while Building #2 is completed with the ultimate Kowloon,” Marchionda said.

A current bylaw requires seven queuing spaces for a restaurant, and one of the variances the project is seeking is because the temporary Kowloon would only have four.

Board member Chris Riley asked how long “temporary” would be, and Marchionda said about 18 months.

The project is also seeking a parking variance regarding the landscape area required every 15 spaces. Marchionda pointed out that the bylaw requires 10% open space, and that the project plans include almost 20%.

Another variance is due to a section in a bylaw saying “Parking areas containing 50 cars or more should have a minimum driveway length of 50 feet between the right of way to the first parking space or the internal driveway intersection.”

A section of the project, the Red Roof Inn, which has been there for more than 20 years, is not 50 feet from the right-of-way to the first parking space.

Everything outlined by Marchionda falls under the Route 1 Zoning Bylaw, and Special Counsel Jesse Schomer explained that one of the items in the bylaw is that the Planning Board does not have the authority to waive those requirements.

“I should caution the board members, as the applicant eluded to, there was a consulting engineer who was advising the Planning Board regarding these issues, and that the list of request variances was based on his review of the plans and his assessment,” Schomer said, adding that the consultant was against some of the variances.

Schomer said it might be a good idea for the consultant to attend a meeting to explain all the decisions made, and Magnan agreed.

The discussion will continue on July 23.