WOBURN - A would-be Main Street restaurateur will have to wait until March 15 to learn the fate of his business venture after the Planning Board this week deferred a recommendation on the special permit request for the 487-489 Main Street eatery.

Immediately apologizing to the Planning Board for incomplete information provided to the City Engineer during the proposal's review process, local attorney John McElhiney appealed to board members to stamp a favorable recommendation on the project.

According to McElhiney, while several issues still needed to be addressed with the restaurant proposal, his client, Peter Mamakos, was working under a quickly-constricting time line.

"He has a lot on his plate," the attorney said of his client, who originally hoped to open the proposed American and Greek restaurant last fall. "What I'd like to do, notwithstanding that he didn't complete his review, is to give you a heads up. Mr. Mamakos wishes to open a restaurant.

"It's essentially a restaurant use within the existing CJ's restaurant space," continued McElhiney.

"It's the same building. There's no change to the building footprint. It's a use you want downtown. We're kind of under a gun here. And I'm hoping that we could give you a sense for the merits of this use," McElhiney added.

Commenting that he sympathized with Mamakos' plight, Planning Board Director Edmund Tarallo claimed that several outstanding concerns raised by the City Engineer's office have still yet to be addressed satisfactorily. And without the thumbs up from City Engineer Jay Corey, Tarallo reluctantly refused to give a recommendation to Planning Board members.

"The engineering department has discovered a number of issues that need clarification. And I can't give you a full recommendation without that. I just don't, at this point, have enough information to give you a recommendation. Do I have the gist of it? Yeah. But generally, our recommendations are more substantive," Tarallo explained.

Specifically, Tarallo listed three specific issues the engineering department highlighted during the review process:

* The lack of a final approval for the drainage plan by a petitioner-hired certified engineer as opposed to a land surveyor;

* The submission of a formal agreement between Mamakos and the proprietor of a neighboring business over the exact location of a city easement for utilities;

* Non-action on an engineering department request that the proposed restaurant's overhang or eaves be repaired.

While agreeing with Tarallo that his client still needed to follow through on the engineering department requests, McElhiney disputed the Planning Director's assertion that the lacking documentation prevented board members from acting favorably on the proposal.

According to the local attorney, the largest single issue board members should consider was not whether the engineering requests were met, but rather, whether the proposed eatery was a detrimental fast-food use.

Further arguing that a few technicalities, including the lack of wait staff and individual ordering menus, forced Building Inspector Steven Paris to rule that the restaurant was a fast-food use, McElhiney and Mamakos countered that the business would be nothing of the sort.

"When the mayor and City Council and Planning Board tried to get a handle on fast-food establishments, the definition lumped together everybody without a full-service [wait staff]. The problem is, [Mamakos] falls under a fast-food use because he wants to have an order as you go, slide your tray along, cafeteria," McElhiney said.

"I'm not belittling these comments by the engineer. But the gist of the special permit is the restaurant, not the overhang of an eaves or canopy," the attorney added.

With the majority of the Planning Board appearing convinced by McElhiney's reasoning that the new restaurant would not be serving fast-food in the traditional sense — with several members voicing their belief that the restaurant was a good use and should be approved — Tarallo's insistence that more information was needed swayed the group away from prematurely offering a favorable vote.

"I don't know what would change my mind against this. There's some technical issues, but I don't see those changing my opinion," said Planning Board member Michael Ventresca.

"I sympathize with you, but at the same time, I see this was first [applied for in June]," added Planning Board Chairman Michael Maher. "It's already gone from July to now. I think that for three-more weeks, I'm willing to wait."