Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sign Code Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Huron advances rewrite of sign code; council removes right-of-way restriction for nonconforming signs
Summary
Council put a rewritten sign chapter on first reading and voted to remove a proposed right-of-way restriction, leaving enforcement focused on public-safety, maintenance and major alterations that would void a sign’s nonconforming status.
The Huron City Council on March 25 moved forward with a revised sign-regulation ordinance (proposed ordinance 2025-8) that defines how legally nonconforming signs will be treated and voted to remove language that would have specifically addressed signs placed in the public right of way.
Attorney Waters explained that the proposed Chapter 11.29 changes would formally recognize signs that existed before the ordinance’s effective date as legally nonconforming. Those signs could remain in place but would lose their nonconforming status if they were structurally altered, enlarged, relocated or replaced; if they were damaged or deteriorated to more than 50% of replacement cost; if they became a public-health, fire-code or safety nuisance; if they were abandoned for more than 12 months; or if a building’s use changed.
Members debated whether to allow signs in the public right of way to retain a nonconforming status. Council member Mr. Closs moved to revise the proposed ordinance language to remove the restriction on signage in the right of way and associated subsections; the motion passed by roll call.
The nut graf: the action preserves existing legal nonconforming signs in most cases while giving the city tools to remove signs that pose safety or code hazards; council opted to strike specific right-of-way language and will revisit technical consistency edits on second reading.
Attorney Waters said the ordinance also clarifies that normal maintenance does not trigger loss of nonconforming status but major repairs that exceed 50% of replacement cost would. "Those would be allowed to stay in existence unless they meet some of these qualifications listed in section b," Waters said while summarizing the draft language. After debate about signs located in the city right of way, Closs moved to remove that restriction from the draft and associated cross references; council voted to adopt the revision on first reading.
Waters noted one technical follow-up: if the right-of-way language is deleted, a related subsection (11.29.06(n) in the draft) should be adjusted to retain language about placement in the city right of way for consistency; staff indicated they will return with the corrected text at second reading.
Ending: The ordinance was placed on first reading with the council-directed language revision; staff and the city attorney will bring a corrected second-reading draft reflecting the agreed changes.
