Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Billboard Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mona council, planning staff say Linton billboard does not meet code; seek ordinance fixes and compliance
Summary
City council and Planning Commission members reviewed a billboard on property owned by Linton, concluded it does not meet Mona's sign code in the combined-use zone, and agreed to pursue ordinance clarifications and require the applicant to bring the sign into compliance before approval.
Council members and planning staff on Tuesday, Sept. 23, 2025, told the owner of a billboard on the Linton property that the sign does not meet Mona’s sign code for the city’s combined-use (CU) zoning and that the application must be brought into compliance before it can be approved.
The issue arose during the work session item on Planning and Zoning regarding a billboard proposed on Main Street in a combined-use zone. A Councilmember (unnamed) opened the discussion saying, “this billboard is in a combined use zone, does not meet the ordinance,” and stressing the need to apply the code consistently.
City planning staff said the structure as installed exceeds the sign-size limits in the city code. Planning staff estimated the billboard to be “over 480 square feet, all 3 sides,” while the existing sign standard in city code is 36 square feet, and noted CU2 language adopted in 2015 left ambiguities. Planning staff told the council the CU2 provision that would allow large billboards was effectively a placeholder and had never been properly implemented on the zoning map; staff recommended deleting the CU2 provision and tightening the code.
Planning Commission member Dennis said the applicant did not have a permit and that the application had been tabled by Planning and Zoning. Staff advised that if an application meets the city’s code, the city cannot deny it; conversely, if it does not meet code, the city can reject or require changes. Planning staff said one route for the property owner to keep the sign would be to bring it into conformance, but that a variance would likely be rejected because the city attorney has advised against granting variances in similar cases.
Council members and planners discussed possible ordinance fixes including removing the CU2 placeholder, limiting billboard placement to commercial or industrial zones rather than combined-use or residential areas, restricting materials (for example, prohibiting plywood and requiring metal framing), and specifying maximum area and height for signs in each zone. Planning staff said a public hearing on proposed code language will be held by Planning and Zoning the following Wednesday and then forwarded to the council.
The council and planning staff discussed next steps: staff will communicate the city’s position to the applicant (identified in the meeting as Mr. Linton) and asked whether the council wanted staff to place the matter on a future council agenda; one councilmember said the item should be placed on the council agenda and that the city attorney should be consulted on the appropriate path forward. Planning staff also said that if the applicant brings the sign dimensions and materials into compliance with the code, staff could approve it; if not, the application should be rejected or referred back to the council for final action.
No formal vote was recorded during the work session. The Planning and Zoning public hearing and revised code language are the next formal steps identified by staff.
