Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signage Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Petitioner asks to enlarge entry monument; board continues sign variance to November
Summary
Developer for the Windswept Farms subdivision requested a variance to build a larger residential entry monument sign than the UDO permits; the Board of Zoning Appeals agreed to continue the petition to the November meeting so staff and the applicant can refine dimensions and review comparable signs.
The Whitestown Board of Zoning Appeals continued a petition from Windswept Farms developers asking to increase the allowable size for a residential entry monument sign to the board's November meeting.
The petitioner, Adam Mears of Gratison Land Development, told the board his design team sized the proposed entry monument for a boulevard island off 700 so the sign will be visible to traffic approaching the subdivision. “When we originally designed it at a smaller footprint, it honestly looked like a fly on an elephant,” Mears said, arguing that a slightly larger sign better fits the island location and the scale of the development.
Mears and his design team said the sign face as proposed measures in the high 30s in square feet (about 8.6 feet by 4 feet for the face) and the whole monument—including base—will be visible from 700. He said the sign will be lit (likely with solar uplighting) and that construction of section one has begun; one lot has sold and a model home is under construction.
Planning staff said they do not find the proposed sign “out of place, out of context or out of size” compared with nearby residential entry monuments in Boone County and surrounding towns, and staff briefed the board on comparable residential entry sizes in neighboring jurisdictions (examples in the packet included figures ranging from the mid‑20s to 48 square feet in other towns). Staff also noted the town is reviewing overall sign standards and that different municipalities handle residential entry sizes differently.
Board members said they liked the design but were split on whether the petitioner had shown the kind of practical difficulty with use of the property that the UDO requires for a variance. Several members suggested smaller adjustments (for example, reducing how far the sign face extends past its supporting posts or targeting a size closer to 32 square feet) or asked for additional examples of nearby approved sign sizes. The petitioner requested a continuance to allow the team to review comparable signs and to present revised dimensions.
The board voted to continue the petition to the November meeting; the petitioner asked for the extra time to revise the design and return with additional examples and documentation.
