Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Whitestown BZA continues Wally's request for 90‑ft interstate pylon sign so petitioner can refine options
Summary
Wally's requested a 90‑foot pylon sign along I‑65 (BZA25‑013DSV). After staff and board raised ordinance, clutter and safety concerns, the petitioner agreed to submit alternative sign packages; the board continued the item to allow staff review.
The Town of Whitestown Board of Zoning Appeals continued Wally's petition for a 90‑foot pylon sign along the I‑65 corridor (BZA25‑013DSV) at its Jan. 8 meeting, giving the petitioner time to provide alternate sign options and for planning staff to review conditions.
Planning staff opened the discussion by reciting the three criteria required for a development‑standards variance and said the staff position was that the three criteria had not been met for a pole/pylon sign along the interstate, noting that pole signs are generally prohibited in the EDO (Enterprise Development Overlay). Staff also noted that INDOT service signs and navigation apps provide other wayfinding for travelers.
Nathan Hale, Wally's director of construction and facilities, told the board the 90‑foot pylon would assist the traveling public and match the elevation of a competing sign across I‑65; he provided elevation figures on the record and argued the I‑65 overlay anticipates visibility and coordinated development. "We're here tonight to request a variance to allow a 90 foot pylon sign along the interstate side of our property," Hale said, and added that Wally's would work with the board on sign options.
Multiple board members raised the risk of opening a precedent — "Pandora's box," in one member's words — if one pylon sign were allowed, and questioned whether the sign would create visual clutter or safety issues for traffic. A member also raised concern about large digital elements and flashing lights; staff and the petitioner discussed possible lighting limits and dimming as conditions.
The petitioner asked for a continuance to submit multiple pylon sign options, smaller digit sizes or ground‑level pricing, and to include Whitestown identification on the sign if the board wished. Staff advised the petitioner to submit resubmittals at least two weeks before the next meeting for timely review. At the petitioner's request, the board moved and seconded a continuance for BZA25‑013DSV; the chair announced the item is continued and will return once planning requirements are satisfied.
The board opened public hearings for both items but recorded no in‑room or online public speakers for either petition. The pylon petition will return to the board after the petitioner submits revised materials and staff prepares an updated recommendation.
