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

Whitley County BZA continues Vision Homes request for off‑premise construction signs after heated public testimony

December 24, 2025 | Whitley County, Indiana


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Whitley County BZA continues Vision Homes request for off‑premise construction signs after heated public testimony
The Whitley County Board of Zoning Appeals on Dec. 23 continued a petition by Vision Homes asking to place four off‑premise construction and directional signs to advertise the Arrowhead Ridge subdivision, citing concerns about advertising, traffic and state permitting.

Staff presented the request, describing four proposed sign locations on county and state routes and warning that Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) is likely to treat the sign at US‑33 as a billboard and decline approval. The developer wants 4‑by‑8‑foot signs (32 square feet) at intersections on US‑33, Anderson Road, Sheldon Road and State Road 205 to direct prospective buyers to the new subdivision.

Neighbors told the BZA they view the signs as commercial advertising rather than directional markers and warned of increased traffic, light pollution from floodlights and aesthetic harm to established residential areas. Kirk Brett Miller of North Sheldon Road argued the request “is literally just an advertisement” and cited case law that, he said, limits variances granted for economic reasons. Ben Lovell, Vision Homes’ project manager, said the design intent is tasteful and that property owners where the signs would sit had granted permission; he said the company would use smaller signs at one location and would add lighting only if requested.

Staff noted the subdivision has some frontage that would support on‑premise construction signs, and suggested the board weigh practical‑difficulty factors and precedent if it considers an off‑premise allowance. Commissioners debated whether the proposal addressed a site constraint or simply economic marketing.

The board first moved to deny the petition; that motion resulted in a 2‑2 tie after one member abstained because of a family conflict. Rather than decide on the merits, the board voted to continue the item to its January meeting so staff can explore conditions, alternatives and the possibility of appointing an alternate member to break the tie. The continuance was adopted by the board.

Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!

Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.

Get instant access to full meeting videos
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep Indiana articles free in 2026

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI