Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signage Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Whitley County BZA denies three off‑premise construction signs for Arrowhead Ridge
Summary
After public comment and staff analysis, the Whitley County Board of Zoning Appeals denied three off‑premise construction sign requests proposed by Vision Homes for the Arrowhead Ridge subdivision, citing weak practical‑difficulty findings and precedent concerns. Each proposed sign was voted on separately and denied.
The Whitley County Board of Zoning Appeals denied Vision Homes’ requests for three off‑premise construction signs related to the Arrowhead Ridge subdivision at its Jan. 27 meeting.
Staff described the petition as a request for off‑premise construction signs and recommended evaluating each sign individually because findings might differ by location. Nathan, planning staff, told the board that NDOT review meant one originally proposed site was no longer in contention, leaving three potential off‑premise sites to consider. He emphasized that variances must show a property‑specific practical difficulty and cautioned about setting precedent.
Petitioner Ben Lovell said he had obtained a verbal clearance from NDOT for the sign on State Road 205 and reiterated his preference to place signs in farm fields rather than next to homes: “I got permission from NDOT today … I would love if we could consider these on an individual basis.”
A resident, Kirk Brett Miller, opposed off‑site signs at length and framed the request as economically motivated rather than property‑specific. “If you wanted a billboard on 205, you can pay for one,” Miller said, adding that allowing off‑premise construction signage would risk proliferating large signs across agricultural land and would undercut the intent of the sign chapter.
The board split the item into three separate votes. For Location 2 (NE corner of 550 E at Anderson Road), a motion to approve with a condition requiring sign removal within two years or when 80% of lots are sold failed; the board then voted to deny Parcel 2 (denial carried 3–1 with 1 abstention). The board subsequently denied Location 3 (the Anderson/Sheldon intersection, 3–1) and Location 4 (Blue Lake & SR 205, vote recorded in favor of denial). Those denials concluded the continued item for Vision Homes.
Board members cited concerns about the sufficiency of practical‑difficulty findings for off‑premise signs and the risk of creating future precedent. No board member moved to approve any of the three off‑site signs.
The public hearing record shows opposition from neighbors and questions about sign size, duration, and whether directional signage standards (smaller, 6‑sq‑ft signs) would be more appropriate.
