Chair Report

Town of Sharon Planning Board

Meeting Minutes of 6/6/12

Amended and Approved on 6/20/12

Sharon Community Center

Filmed by SCTV

Planning Board Attendees

Eli Hauser, Vice Chair	Anne Bingham - absent
Rob Maidman	Pat Pannone, Clerk
David Milowe	Peter O’Cain, Town Engineer

Attendees

Alice Cheyer	Bob Shelmerdine
Dave Coonan	Mark Cohen

Chair Report

Mr. Hauser called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM and read the Chair’s Report.

Minutes

Mr. Pannone moved to accept the 5/23/12 minutes as submitted. Mr. Milowe seconded the motion. The Board voted 3-0-1 in favor of approval (Mr. Milowe abstained as he was absent on 5/23/12).

Marc Cohen Realty Sign

Mr. Cohen came before the Board requesting a new sign at 29 South Main Street. Both Mr. Pannone and Mr. Milowe were concerned with the bright red color that Mr. Cohen selected as it does not match the historic color palette of Benjamin Moore paints. Mr. Cohen said the color is reflective of his branding and pointed out that the color is present on the street within the flags as well as several other signs. Mr. O’Cain said the sign meets the size requirements. After a brief discussion Mr. Pannone moved to accept Marc Cohen Realty sign in tomato red and sized at 18 inches tall by 4 feet tall wide. Mr. Milowe seconded the motion and the Board voted 4-0-0 in favor of approval.

Tedeschi’s Decision

Mr. Hauser reviewed the Tedeschi site plan approval process to date. He stated that at the last meeting the Board reviewed the landscape plan, elevation and floor plan but not the sign, lighting or draft. He then reviewed the signage table prepared by Mr. Shelmerdine which reviews the current signs versus proposed signage.

SIGNAGE TABLE

	SIGN BYLAW (Business District A)	SIGN COMMITTEE PERMITS (1-26-88)(12-9-85)	EXISTING	PROPOSED
NAME SIGN (Sec. 5.1)	One Sign Allowed. One (1) Attached or Free Standing Sign: Name of Occupant; Street#; Uses of Occupant; > 2sf	N/A	None	None
PERMANENT WALL SIGN (Sec. 5.3.1)	Two Signs Allowed. One (1) per Occupant, per Street > 30sf (no more than 10% of Elevation). Also, if the Building abuts a parking Lot, then by SP a secondary Sign > 15sf	One Sign Allowed. One @ 2.5 X 2.5 (6.25sf).	One @ 18sf	One @ 30sf
PERMANENT FREE STANDING SIGN (Pylon) (Sec. 5.3.2)	One Sign Allowed. One (1) per street > 6sf > 10ft high	One Sign Allowed. One Internally Lit Free Standing 4’x8’ (32sf) @ 16ft high w/fluorescent lighting > 696 watts (12-9-85 Permit allowed 40sf @ 16 ft high, internally lit)	One @ 40.3125sf	One @ 40.5sf
SIGN AREA BONUSES (Sec. 5.6)	Up to 50% larger in Area than allowed, if meet 5 of 8 criteria of Section 6.
CANOPY SIGNS	None	Two Signs Allowed. Two @ 2 x 12 (24sf) each	Two @ 17sf each	Two @ 15sf each
DISPENSER SIGNS (Spandrel)	None	Two Signs Allowed. Two non-illuminated signs 2’ x 6’ on poles @ pump island < 7’ above ground	Two Spandrel Signs	None

Mr. O’Cain said that he thinks the chart submitted by the applicant is very helpful with respect to defining the changes proposed. The "Sign Committee Permits" column of the chart indicates previously approved signs by the former "Sign Committee".

Mr. Milowe said that he wants the “T” on the dispensers to be noted as signs.

Mr. Hauser commented on the new lighting by stating that there will be 4 new light posts, 4 lights at the front door, a wall light on the cooler and bike area, lights underneath the pylon canopy and the lights on the signs on the canopy and digital led display. Mr. Pannone, Mr. Maidman and Mr. Milowe all expressed that the signs on the canopy are unnecessary.

Mr. Coonan of Tedeschi’s said that they want to stay with the two led lights on the pylon but they will be turned off at night. The canopy lights being offered are white powdered coated lights over the canopy signs rather than previously proposed silver coated. There will be two bulbs for each unit.

Both Mr. Pannone and Mr. Milowe commented that they like the powdered white coat lights better.

Mr. Coonan stated that the “T” on the pumps is branding.

Mr. Milowe said that having 10 signs is excessive.

Mr. Maidman said he does not like the dispenser signs.

Mr. Pannone said he thinks the canopy signs are overkill.

Mr. Shelmerdine commented that the landscaping and elevation plans are a drastic improvement over the current environment.

Mr. Hauser said he wants more clarity in the decision. He said there are certain non conforming allowances the applicant is walking away from, and some they are keeping. He wants the written decision to include these explicitly stated in order to take a vote.

The Tedeschi entourage stepped away from the meeting for discussion.

Officer Elections

Mr. Milowe moved to nominate Mr. Hauser as Chair. Mr. Pannone seconded the motion. The Board voted 3-0-1 in favor and Mr. Hauser abstained.

Mr. Pannone nominated Mr. Milowe as Vice Chair and Mr. Maidman seconded the motion. The Board voted 3-0-1 in favor and Mr. Milowe abstained.

Mr. Milowe moved to nominate Mr. Maidman as Secretary. Mr. Pannone seconded the motion. The Board voted 3-0-1 in favor and Mr. Maidman abstained.

Tedeschi’s Decision Continued

Mr. Milowe questioned if Tedeschi’s has any relationship with the Royal Bank of Canada, which is his employer. Mr. Coonan of Tedeschi’s said they do not. Mr. Milowe said that he can therefore vote on the decision.

The discussion continued regarding reviewing the signage table. They reviewed what exists and what is proposed. The Board worked with Mr. Shelmerdine for the remainder of the meeting updating the draft document. Mr. Shelmerdine had both his laptop and printer at the meeting. The Board provided their wording suggestions.

Mr. Pannone commented that he thinks this is being done quickly and hopes all holes are plugged.

Mr. Milowe said this is not the most efficient way to review documents.

Mr. O’Cain said that the plan is what we wanted. The site plan is better and he appreciates Tedeschi’s making the changes.

Mr. Milowe moved to accept Tedeschi’s Landscaping, Floor, Elevation, Architectural, Sight and Lighting project details in the document updated onsite by Mr. Shelmerdine. Mr. Pannone seconded the motion and the Board voted 4-0-0 in favor of approval. The document was signed by the Board.

Adjournment

Mr. Milowe moved to adjourn at 9:50 PM. Mr. Maidman seconded the motion. The Board voted 4-0-0 to adjourn.

Attachments

1. Tedeschi Decision

2. Signage Table prepared by Attorney Shelmerdine