Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cvs Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Board asks CVS to resubmit ground sign design, urges improved site maintenance
Summary
Ultimate Signs presented a CVS branding refresh for 20 Merrick Road; the Planning Board declined to approve the application without a ground‑sign submission and urged CVS to consider a wood-style panel or background panel to preserve the previously negotiated downtown look and to address poor landscaping.
The Planning Board on June 4 reviewed a sign application for the CVS at the northeast corner of County Line Road and Merrick Road and asked the applicant to resubmit the ground sign design and to consider a wooden-style or background panel that would better fit the village’s established aesthetic.
Arlene Meli of Ultimate Signs & Designs presented updated non-illuminated channel letters for the building façade and said the ground-sign faces would be repainted and refreshed as part of the corporate rebrand. Meli acknowledged the ground-sign materials were missing from the initial submission and offered to return with separate ground-sign drawings if the board would allow partial approval; the board said the full submission was required.
Board members and members of the public emphasized the village's earlier negotiated “Nantucket”/wood-style signage for the CVS property. Member Mary D’Andrea asked Meli to take the board’s preference back to CVS corporate branding staff: “I would like you to go back to CVS and see if you can do the new logo with the heart with the wood sign like we previously had,” D’Andrea said. Chairperson Stephen Greenwald and others also urged CVS to address longstanding site‑maintenance issues—dead trees, an inactive irrigation system and overgrown beds—either as part of the sign application or in a subsequent submission.
Resident Joan Donnison, who said she participated in the original sign negotiation, noted the durability problems of carved signs and suggested the applicant propose alternative materials that keep the colonial character while lasting longer. Another speaker asked the applicant to consider improving landscaping or irrigation around any new ground sign.
Because the ground-sign documentation was missing and the board preferred a sign treatment that better fits the village character, the Planning Board voted unanimously to ask the applicant to resubmit with a ground-sign design and to consider the wooden-background approach; the board also encouraged the applicant to address landscape and maintenance concerns. The vote to request a full submission and revisions passed 5–0.
Next steps: applicant to return with a ground-sign submission and revised materials; the board will review the revised package at a future meeting.
