Craig Dreyer, a resident of 52 Parkview Lane, told the Village of Hortonville Board of Trustees on May 1 he is concerned about a large sign mounted on a trailer at a new subdivision and other construction impacts on his street.

Dreyer said the sign appears to be about 480 square feet and faces his property; he asked whether the trailer-mounted sign is allowed under village ordinances, whether it is considered a temporary sign, and whether the developer’s agreement authorizes two such signs. He also asked whether a semi-trailer that has been parked on-site for about six months and is being used as the sign’s platform should be removed.

Dreyer said residents were woken at about 6:15 a.m. by a bobcat repeatedly beeping while reversing and asked whether the board’s ordinances limit construction start times or whether hours of operation should be specified in the developer’s agreement. He asked whether the developer will install a sidewalk along the roadway and whether the developer will repair a wet, rutted section of road where construction vehicles have been parking. Dreyer asked whether fiber‑optic trenching left on the road will be repaired.

Administrator Nathan and other trustees responded that they had spoken with Dreyer previously and that staff would review the village code and developer agreement. Nathan said he did not immediately see a clear code violation based on the materials in front of him and that enforcement or citation options would require legal review. Village attorney Ashley said she would work with Nathan to determine whether citations or a letter could be issued and to advise whether an agenda item is warranted for further board action.

Dreyer requested follow-up contact and provided his phone number and email for staff to respond.

The board did not vote on enforcement or changes to the developer agreement at the May 1 meeting; staff and the attorney said they would look into the matter and return with findings or recommendations to the board.

Dreyer’s public comment and the board’s initial response took place during the pre-registered citizen comment period and later during the administrator’s report, when staff indicated they would investigate whether an ordinance violation exists and whether further action is justified.