Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 3 · column 2 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
dictates that, in the event of damage to a non-conforming sign, “the extent of damage be determined by the Building Inspector.” If the damage is determined to be in excess of one-half of the appraised value or one-tenth of the rental value of the sign, the Code states, then the sign “shall not be repaired or replaced and shall be removed.” When the sign’s supporting poles were replaced without benefit of the Building Inspector’s assessment, Mr. McCarthy asserted, the procedure was violated and the sign, as specified in Section A of County Code 107-103, “the subject sign shall be deemed to be an unlawful sign” and therefore subject to removal.
Attorney Fletcher contended in his appeal before the Board of Zoning Appeals that the sign was not damaged at all—damage occurred only to the sign’s supporting structure, he said, and therefore Luray Caverns was not subject to the rules of County Code 107-103. Mr. Fletcher said that “the issue is what is a sign,” and he cited the definition in Webster’s Dictionary, a sign is “a lettered board placed upon a supporting structure,” to support his interpretation.
After lengthy discussion Board member Bob Weinberg forwarded a motion to have the County Attorney review the legal issues of the appeal before any decision was made, but there was no second, and member Jennifer Matthews
95.1%