Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies Love’s request for high‑rise pylon and large sign areas near I‑65 interchange
Summary
The Area Board rejected multiple variances sought by Love’s for a 150‑foot high pylon sign and greatly expanded sign area near the East 200 North/Schuyler Avenue interchange; staff and the board cited precedent, visibility and aesthetic concerns and all four variances were denied.
The Area Board of Zoning Appeals on March 26 denied four variances requested by Love’s for a high-rise freestanding sign and substantial sign-area increases at the truck stop near the I‑65/State Road 25 interchange.
APC staff opposed the requests and urged denial, citing concerns that approving such a large pylon and large panel areas would set a precedent and risk visual clutter along the interstate corridor. "If this is approved, where does it stop after that?" planner Christine Veil said in the staff presentation.
Love’s representative Steve Walters said the company’s system-wide analysis supports taller, larger signage along high-speed corridors for safety and business reasons and described the change as necessary to attract truck traffic; he said the store is underperforming and that a taller sign would produce measurable lift in truck visits. Walters suggested the proposed height remained below nearby cell towers and argued sign engineering would meet safety standards.
Board action: three of the four requested variances were denied unanimously (0–6 in favor); two of the variances (variance 3 and variance 4) received one yes vote but failed (1–5). The record shows the ballots cast against the variances and the board denied the full package.
Why it matters: the proposal would have increased maximum freestanding sign height from 24 feet to 150 feet and increased freestanding and sign‑lot area allowances by an order of magnitude in a primarily rural/interchange area. Nearby residents and commenters expressed concern about aesthetics and roadway safety and questioned whether additional large signage would prompt a “sign war” with other developments.
Votes at a glance: BZA 2184 — all four sign variances denied. Variance 1: 6 ballots cast, 0 in favor, 6 against. Variance 2: 6 ballots cast, 0 in favor, 6 against. Variance 3: 6 ballots cast, 1 in favor, 5 against. Variance 4: 6 ballots cast, 1 in favor, 5 against. Outcome: all denied.
