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 1 · column 3 of 4 · from the scan, no model involved
BY GERALD OCHS
Rappahannock News Writer
The rehearing of an appeal by Luray Caverns, had the same net result as the original appeal hearing in April. The County’s Board of Zoning Appeals voted unanimously to affirm Zoning Administrator John McCarthy’s decision to have their sign, located on Ivan Hall’s property in Sperryville, removed permanently because of a procedural miscue by Luray Caverns—they removed the sign when it was found that two of the five supporting posts were damaged, and replaced the posts without informing the County Building Inspector.
According to the relevant ordinance, County Code Section 107-103, the Building Inspector must examine any such damage and assess the cost of repairs, and weigh those against the sign’s value. If the cost of repairs would exceed a specified percentage of the sign’s value, then the ordinance requires that the sign not be repaired, but be permanently removed.
The appeal had to be reheard because of the failure of the county to hold the required public hearing on it before votes were cast by the BZA.
This rehearing was restricted to two issues, aSPbrding to County Attorney Peter Luke, based upon the motion of appeal filed by Luray Cavern’s,' attorney, James W. Fletcher III.
In his motion, Mr. Fletcher contended that the Luray Cavern sign was not nonconforming and! therefore not subject to the ordinance, nor was it damaged in excess of the specified percentage: either fifty percent of the value of the sign, or ten percent of the rental value of the sign.
In his appeal presentation, Mr. Fletcher questioned John Schafer of Luray Caverns to establish the value of the sign and the cost of repairs, and to support his contention that the sign had less than fifty percent damage and was therefore not nonconforming. Mr, Schafer noted that the cost of repairs to the supporting structure was $2500, and that the sign had been valued at $35,000.
The valuation was based upon an appraisal convention that establishes value by multiplying a monthly rental value by one hundred.
See DECISION, Page A7
89.6%