TOWN OF SHARON

PLANNING BOARD

Minutes of a meeting of the Planning Board held on January 11, 2006, at 7:30 p.m., in the Town Offices.

PRESENT: REGINA MANISCALCO, CHAIR

WAYNE BRADLEY, CLERK

ARNOLD COHEN

PAUL LAUENSTEIN

PETER O’CAIN, ASST. TOWN ENGINEER

Business Transacted:

I. Meeting called to order. The minutes of the December 14, 2005, and December 28, 2005, meetings were reviewed and accepted with corrections.

FORM A PLANS

None.

SIGN REVIEW

None.

II. MEETING WITH POST OFFICE SQUARE REVITALIZATION COMMITTEE

The Board invited members of the P.O. Square Revitalization Committee to its meeting to discuss signs in the Square. The issue that had come up to warrant this meeting was the addition of second signs for the property on East Chestnut Street. Second signs may have been put on the side of the building, without the permission of the Board. Additionally, second signs were not permitted under the sign by-law unless the side of the building abutted another street.

____________________________

Administrative Assistant

Planning Board Minutes Page Two January 11, 2006

Mr. Cohen explained that the by-law stated that if you are on a corner lot, you can have a sign on both the front of the building and on the side. Mr. O’Cain added that the wording specifically said if the property “abuts” another street. If the side of the building abuts a parking lot, does it still mean it abuts the street?

Mr. Croteausaid that Board might want to also consider what it is going to do about signs on the rear of buildings adjacent to the Town parking lot on Billings Street. These businesses have rear entrances and may want to put signs up there also. He said he did not necessarily see this as a bad option.

Mr. Cohen said that the Board was currently concerned with the property on East Chestnut Street and was looking to the Committee to see if they saw any problems with these second signs. Mr. Croteau said he was more concerned about the environment and not having the types of signs going in that weren’t allowed at all, such as neon signs or back lit signs. Mr. Baskin was concerned about setting an unfavorable precedent. If two signs are allowed here, why wouldn’t they be allowed in other areas of the Square – this could set a precedent the Town wasn’t looking for.

Mr. Bradley said that the parking lot goes toward the applicant’s required parking for his business. Therefore, it should be considered as being part of his parcel, even though it is technically a Town parking lot.

Ms. Maniscalco said that the Town is trying to encourage economic development in the Town. Perhaps the Board should look into changing the language of the sign by-law to address the issue of a business abutting a parking lot that abuts a street.

Mr. Baskin said that if everyone is allowed to put up a 50 square foot sign on the building, it will create visual clutter. If you start plastering the walls of buildings with tons of signs, it will become a mess. He recommends allowing a business to have a regular sign on the front of the building and allowing a series of smaller signs on the side. Mr. Bailey added that you can regulate the sign content on the side signs by allowing the name of the business only without any logos or pictures.

Planning Board Minutes Page Three January 11, 2006

Mr. Lauenstein added that if you go ahead and allow this sign now, what is to prevent someone else from coming along later and saying that “well you gave this business a side sign and now let me have one also under the same provisions.” The Board may need to amend the current by-law for second signs giving specifics.

Mr. O’Cain reminded everyone that the question here was does the building abut the street or not. Mr. Croteau said that he did not think the building abutted the street as the owner did not own the parking lot.

After further discussion, Ms. Maniscalco asked what the Board could do for this applicant at this time? Mr. Bradley suggested giving him a temporary waiver and for the Board to amend the sign by-law at spring town meeting. Mr. Baskin suggested that the Board take a look at the Brookline sign by-law.

Ms. Manisaclco encouraged the Board to look at amending the sign by-law and placing a holder in the warrant to get this in the spring town meeting.

Messrs. Bradley and Lauenstein were to set up an appointment with the Building Inspector to discuss this issue and other sign issues in the Town.

III. DISCUSSION RE: PLANNING CONSULTANT

This issue was deferred to a later meeting.

IV. WATER BANKING BY-LAW

Mr. Lauenstein reported that he had recently learned from Town Counsel that this type of by-law was illegal, so it cannot be done. There is a proposal before the Legislature regarding this, but to date nothing has been done on it.

V. OTHER BUSINESS

---The Board of Selectmen has requested that the Planning Board attend its January 17, 2006, meeting to discuss the following issues: A Town Planner; an MUOD update; and the Housing Production Plan. Ms. Maniscalco requested that whatever Board members were available that evening attend the meeting.

Planning Board Minutes Page Four January 11, 2006

---Mrs. Katz issue on Pond Street. Mr. O’Cain reported that the Building Inspector felt that the by-law did not pertain to this site regarding notice to abutters. According to Mr. Kent, the lot was totally conforming and therefore notice to abutters was not required. The Historical Commission did hold a hearing on this issue. Mr. Bradley explained that it was not the non-conformity aspect that was at issue here, but rather Mrs. Katz was concerned about the abutters not being notified that such a huge home was to be built in this neighborhood; that it was out of proportion with the other homes in the immediate vicinity. Mr. Cohen said that he didn’t think this was an issue for the Planning Board anyway, but rather the ZBA.

VI. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.