Midway residents, builders urge review of sign code after enforcement incidents

Several Midway residents and a local builder urged the Midway City Council on Monday to revisit how the city enforces its recently adopted sign code after a series of enforcement encounters, including signs removed from private yards.

Those concerns were raised during the council’s public‑comment period. James Hendricks of Watts Enterprises said workers were forced to alter construction signs during inspections because the signs displayed the builder’s name and phone number under the city’s new interpretation. “We post signs on our job sites so people can find us and get a hold of us,” Hendricks told the council, asking that the city “pause on the enforcement of this until maybe we can look into it a little deeper.”

The requests matter because, Hendricks said, signs provide contact information for subcontractors, delivery drivers and neighbors during active construction. The builder said his crew removed identifying information only after an inspector raised the issue, and asked the council to reconsider the enforcement approach.

Resident Susan Koehler described a separate incident in which she said a city employee removed a temporary commercial sign from private property near her home. “It appalls me that our sweet and humble little Midway has come to this,” Koehler told the council, saying the removal felt like government overreach. She said she was later sent a certified letter notifying her of a land‑use violation and expressed frustration at the process and the expense of the notice.

City planner Katie Valani (city staff) answered commenters during the meeting and said the city routinely monitors signage along public rights of way to control off‑premise and unauthorized advertising. “We do regularly drive around. It's one of the reasons our town does not get cluttered with inappropriate signage,” Valani said, adding that when staff take signs from an easement they attempt to notify owners and give them an opportunity to retrieve the sign. She also clarified a legal distinction: the code prohibits off‑premises advertising even if the sign sits on private property in a city easement or is not located at the advertiser’s place of business. “If that company were operating out of your location, it could advertise if it was within zoning. But it's not operating at your location, so it's off‑premises advertising, not allowed under the city code,” Valani said.

Another resident, Brian Hogan, said city staff visited a local merchant during business hours to demand a sign be removed and called that practice an inappropriate image of Midway. Hogan told the council that, even if a sign violates the code, approaching a business in front of customers is poor form.

Valani said enforcement time is limited and that sign removal routes take about an hour per week. She and other staff emphasized that some commonly used builder signs have historically been tolerated, while other signs that include third‑party advertising or large images go beyond what the code permits. She said some signs historically allowed because of their informational utility technically do not comply with the updated ordinance.

The council did not take formal action on the matter during the meeting. Builders and residents asked staff and the council to review the practical effects of enforcement and consider a temporary pause or clearer guidance on what is permitted during active construction.

City staff did not announce any change to enforcement at the meeting. The planning office said it will continue correspondence with concerned parties and that developers or residents may pursue further administrative clarifications or an amendment to the city’s sign regulations if they want a policy change.