09-10-07 Item 7D, Clear Channel - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

[Jer,yFilla ~ yirestiaw_l:jci~lJii1e~t 12'::'49'::':i~:::~3$.(f~O:~: :: - .,-:::.: -- _::. Page 51 . ...S.E.2d---- -. S.E.2d -.', 2007 WL 1651100 (Va.) (Cite as: - S.E.2d .._) petitioners' argument, nothing in the ezo's definition of the term "fsjigns. surface area " suggests that I nonconforming billboard is "enlarged" only when the square footage of the advertising surface area is increased. CONCLUSION For these reasons, we conclude that the BZA, in finding tbat the addition of the message board "enlarged" the billboard, did not apply erroneous principles of law. Nor was its decision plainly wrong and in violation of the intent and purpose of the CZO. See Trustees. 273 Va. at 380. 64\ S.E.2d at 107, Because the provisions of COO I 215(8) requiring that no nonconforming billboard "shall be structurally altered, enlarged, moved or replaced" are in the disjunctive, It is not necessary to address the petitionen' assignment of error challenging the circuit court's decision that the installation of the message board "structurally altered" the billboard. .S Furthermore, the petitioners' remalDlDg assignment of error challenging the circuit court's holding that Adams must remove the billboard in order to comply with the CZO speaks only to the "determination that a structural alteration made to a nonconforming billboard cannot be cured by returning the billboard to the same condition in whith it existed prior to the structural alteration." (Emphasis added). The petitioners do not challenge the circuit court's separate, independent holding that Adams could not cure the enlargement of the billboard by returning the billboard to its preexisting condition. Thus, we will not consider that assignment of error..EtIi See MaileD of Man/and. Inc. v. Barr. 262 Va. 1. 545 S.E.2d 548. 548 1200ll (when there i. an independent basis for the lower court's judgment that is not Challenged on appeal, this Court does not address the assigned error). For these reasons, we will affirm the circuit court's judgment. A/firmed. FNI. Apparently, the engineer's citation to IBC ~ 3403.2 was a derical error, He Page 5 should have referenced IBC * 3402.2. FN2. The CZO define. lhe term "Is/trueture II as n(a)nything constructed or erected with a fixed location on the ground, or requiring a fixed location on the ground, or attached to something having or requiring a fixed location on the ground." CZO ~ 11\. In defining the term "lsJigns, surface area." the em states: The surface area of a sign shall be computed as including the entire area within a parallelogram, triangle, circle, semicircle or other regular geometric figure, including all of the elements of the matter displayed, but not including blank masking, frames or structural elements outside the sign surface and bearing no advertising matter. The surface area of each face of a double-faced sign shall count to (ward tbe) total sign area permitted. It/. FN3. As of July 1, 2006, the provisions of Code S 15.2-2314 state that on appeal to a circuit court, lithe findings and conclusions of the board of zoning appeals on questions of fact shall be presumed to be correct" and that "(tlhe court sball hear any arguments on questions of law de novo." 2006 Acts ch. 446. In this opinion, all references to Code S 15,2. 2314 pertain to the version in effect at the time the petitioners filed their petition for a writ of certiorari in the circuit court, which occurred before the 2006 amendments enacted by the General Assembly became effective. FN4. We likewise will not address the petitioners' argument about "just compensation." That issue was not before the BM. See Adams Outdoor Advertisinu. 26\ Va. at 416. 544 S.E.2d at 320. Va.,2007. Adams Outdoor Advertising, L,P. v. Board of Zoning Appeals of City of Virginia Beach - S.E.2d --, 2007 WL 1651100 (Va.) END OF DOCUMENT <<l 2007 ThomsonIWest. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.