Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Signage topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning board approves 72.93‑sq‑ft illuminated sign and conditional use permit for 11 Stickney Ave

Concord Planning Board · October 16, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Concord Planning Board granted architectural design review and a conditional use permit for a 72.93‑sq‑ft internally illuminated wall sign at 11 Stickney Avenue, approving staff and ADR recommendations with precedent and subsequent conditions.

The Concord Planning Board voted to grant architectural design review approval and a conditional use permit for a 72.93‑square‑foot internally illuminated wall sign at 11 Stickney Avenue.

Staff presented the application and said the project required a CUP because the proposed wall sign would sit above the first‑floor windows. Alec (staff) told the board the Architectural Design Review Committee reviewed the application on Sept. 30 and recommended approval as submitted. "This normally ADR would be a consent item, but because of the conditional use permit, it does require a public hearing here tonight," staff said.

Scott Albertson, representing First Sign, said his company designed the sign to preserve an existing granite plaque on the façade and to maintain visibility from Stickney and the nearby highway. "Where we positioned the sign was critical because we didn't want to cover the existing, granite sign...and we did choose to...do it up on the building to keep it nice and clean," Albertson said.

Board members asked technical questions about illumination and mounting. Albertson confirmed the letters will be internally lit with LED fixtures and that the sign will be routed to two support bars; he also said the light would project from the face of the letters rather than from the rear. Staff recommended both ADR approval and conditional approval of the CUP, and the board moved and approved both motions.

The approvals were adopted with the staff‑recommended precedent and subsequent conditions described in the packet. The applicant was instructed to comply with the listed conditions and with any required construction and permitting details prior to installation.

The board closed the public hearing after no members of the public registered oral objections and carried the motions.