Huron City Council members on Tuesday, Jan. 14, agreed to ask city staff and the law department to draft an ordinance to address business signage located in public rights of way, after staff said the city’s existing code generally prohibits such signs but does not specify how to handle signs already in place.

City staff told the council the measure would aim to balance safety and maintenance needs with the reality that some signs have existed for decades. The proposed approach discussed at the work session would treat qualifying existing signs as nonconforming uses — allowed to remain while the use continues unless there is a zoning or building violation, a public-safety problem, or an extended lapse in use — and would give the city clear authority to require removal when necessary.

Staff member Mr. Schroeder opened the discussion with an overview of right-of-way principles and the legal background that guides the city. He said the city has found multiple instances of business signs located in the right of way, often discovered through complaints or during site-plan review. “There is no grandfathering for infringements in the right of way,” Schroeder said, adding that the city must retain the ability to use and maintain rights-of-way for public purposes such as snow removal, roadway work and utility repairs.

Schroeder and other staff described technical reasons signs can end up in the right of way: right-of-way boundaries are not uniform and do not always align with property lines. Staff referenced the ODOT right-of-way plan manual as a technical guide for how right-of-way lines are determined and said aerials prepared with help from Mr. Friedrich of OHL showed wide and irregular right-of-way limits along some city corridors.

Staff outlined a draft policy concept discussed at the meeting: adopt an ordinance that would allow existing signs in the right of way to remain when they do not present safety hazards or concurrent code violations, but require relocation when a use changes or when a sign remains unused for a council-determined dormant period (staff suggested options such as six months or one year). Staff also said the ordinance would explicitly preserve the city’s ability to remove or relocate signs where needed for public works, road widening or utilities.

Council members asked questions about appeals and enforcement. Staff and legal counsel said property owners and sign applicants could still appeal city decisions to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) and, ultimately, pursue judicial review. Council members sought language that would give clear guidance to the BZA and protect the city’s ability to act when a sign creates a safety problem.

Public-safety concerns discussed by council members included sight-line obstruction at intersections and the effect of signs on pedestrian and vehicular visibility. The police chief, present for the discussion, said there have been past complaints but did not cite recent specific incidents. Council members noted many commercial corridors likely contain older signs that do not pose issues but said the city needs a consistent, defensible process for addressing problem cases.

By the end of the work session council members expressed consensus to have staff and legal prepare draft legislation for discussion. Staff said they would review how other municipalities handle the issue and expected the draft to go through the city’s review process. No ordinance or amendment was adopted at the meeting.

A short formal motion to adjourn the work session, moved by Mister Bilkow, passed on a roll-call vote recorded as Yes: Jojo, Aquino, Paz, Dyke and Reeves.