Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
South Strabane approves dimensional sign variances for proposed Costco at former Washington Mall site
Summary
The zoning hearing board granted two dimensional variances to allow larger and additional wall signs for a proposed 158,000‑square‑foot Costco at the Washington Mall site, after developer testimony that signs are needed for interstate and arterial road visibility.
The South Strabane Zoning Hearing Board approved two dimensional variances requested by Costco for wall signage at a proposed 158,000‑square‑foot warehouse store to be built on the former Washington Mall site.
Attorney Kevin McKean introduced the application and witnesses from the project team, saying the site (C2 general commercial) will host a large warehouse with a fuel station and an 873‑space parking lot. Architect Brian Kendall and Costco real estate director John Alvarado testified that the proposed wall signs were sized to be legible from Interstate 79 and the arterial approach roads and that similar sign dimensions exist at other Costco locations. Kendall described visibility and wayfinding needs driven by the site's distance from signalized intersections and the speed of traffic on the interstate; Alvarado said limiting the signs to 64 square feet — the township standard — would disadvantage customers and not be typical for Costco warehouses.
Several residents opposed the request, arguing the township intentionally reduced allowable sign size to limit light pollution and visual clutter and that a major retailer should not be granted an exception simply because it is a large company. One resident noted the township had revised its ordinance to reduce permitted sign sizes because current signage already dominates the skyline. Concerns included light pollution, precedent for future variances and the store's visibility to nearby neighborhoods.
After admitting applicant exhibits and taking testimony, the board closed the record and voted to approve both parts of the requested relief (sign size and number) as set out in the application. Board members and counsel noted that site‑plan review by the supervisors and planning commission would still govern lighting, shielding and other site‑specific controls.
The approvals allow the applicant to proceed with final site‑plan approvals and construction permits, subject to the township's normal permitting and engineering reviews.
