It’s a sign of . . . progress, or impunity?

Apr. 11, 2013

The pollen count isn’t the only thing rising in Rappahannock County this spring, as controversy over a new animated electronic sign in front of Rappahannock County High School is also filling the air. is amazing for Tickets in New Braunfels, TX for Hayes Carll, Roger Creager, Jerry Jeff Walker, Delbert McClinton at Tickets New Braunfels in Gruene Hall, and Whitewater On The Horseshoe.

The new animated electronic sign out in front of RCHS has been a source of controversy lately. Photo by Matt Wingfield.

The new animated electronic sign out in front of RCHS has been a source of controversy lately. Photo by Matt Wingfield.

Erected in late August, the sign’s placement was first brought up at one of the school board’s March budget hearings, when Rick Kohler, president of the Rappahannock League for Environmental Protection (RLEP), submitted a letter to the board voicing RLEP’s disapproval.

The letter reads, in part, “a sign ordinance . . . states that backlit and animated signs are not allowed in this county. While we realize the school is exempt from certain ordinances, we feel it important that the school live within the spirit thereof.”

RLEP’s letter concluded with the request that the sign “be turned off or, preferably, removed.”

The issue was raised again at the April 1 meeting of the board of supervisors by longtime residents David Konick of Rock Mills and Flint Hill innkeeper Phil Irwin (also the vice president of RLEP), who both voiced their displeasure with the sign and lobbied the supervisors to remove it.

Konick described the sign as “an attractive nuisance,” and both men said they were worried that the sign was distracting, as trying to read it drew drivers’ attention off the road.

“That’s a bad place to get distracted,” Konick said.

Amissville resident Ron Makela brought up the sign again at the joint budget hearing held by the school board and the supervisors last week. Makela (who is also a member of RLEP) questioned the wisdom of the school board’s decision to spend $15,000 on the sign rather than new buses (a school board priority in this year’s budget) or other, more pressing needs.

Makela said he believed the sign “violated our own zoning ordinances” and petitioned the board to adopt a new way of thinking about money left over at the end of the school year. “Stop trying to just not give it back to the supervisors,” Makela said, encouraging the board to plan ahead for other projects rather than try to spend the money all at once.

At the school board’s monthly meeting this Tuesday night (April 9), interim superintendent Kathleen Grove in fact presented the board members with an information packet in response to many of the issues raised at the joint meeting last week. One of the report’s final pages lists the totals of local funding the board returned to the supervisors, per year, since the 1997-1998 school year. Since 2010, the board returned $121,321 – funds which were then (as is their option) reallocated to the board by the supervisors.

However, between 1997 and 2009, $633,562.87 was returned to the supervisors and not reallocated to the school division, though County Administrator John McCarthy said he “couldn’t recall a year where the [school] board asked for the funds and didn’t receive them.”

School board chairman John Lesinski and board member Amy Hitt defended the board’s decision to purchase the sign at the joint meeting, with Hitt saying that “it’s the little things that make kids want to come here.”

Hitt, who said she loved the new sign, also pointed out that the school board “doesn’t have to follow the county’s zoning ordinance.”

McCarthy said that technically the school board is exempt from the county’s sign ordinance, as are the county’s other governmental bodies. Because that spot was already zoned and approved for a school sign, the board didn’t have to submit any other permits and could place a new sign immediately.

Nonetheless, although the board did nothing legally wrong by placing the new sign, the decision hasn’t been popular with much of the the community.

“The sign cost the taxpayers $15,000. We essentially spent tax dollars to put up a sign that goes against the wishes of a majority of the county residents,” wrote Makela as part of a discussion on Rappnet, the local email list-serve.

“Was anyone consulted, beyond the school board, for likes or dislikes?” wondered longtime Huntly resident Nol Putnam, also on Rappnet. “I can think of a number of better uses – starting with stuffing the Friday book packs with books in addition to food.”

Numerous other posters in the email threads decried the sign’s construction, describing it as “an eyesore” and “hard to read,” though at least one poster approved of the idea.

“I think the sign is too busy and hard to read without stopping in the school turn lane,” said Sharon Kilpatrick of Slate Mills. “The old sign was not satisfactory . . . an electronic sign is a good idea, but that thing was up before the public could weigh in.”

Print Friendly


7 Responses to It’s a sign of . . . progress, or impunity?

  1. Michele Fincham on Apr. 11, 2013 at 12:52 pm

    I for one like the sign. I don’t see it as a distraction and its little things like this that bring just a little bit of what other counties have to our county. I have lived here most of my life. I love the peace and quiet and the fact that its not overgrown like other counties but sometimes you people just go way too far. Sometimes just allow change. It’s not always a bad thing. Get over it. I’m sure the whole county is not in shambles because that sign is up. Why don’t you people start talking about the things that are coming into our county that truly are important that I know for a fact you don’t want here. Oh but let’s not talk about that. We don’t want to tarnish good old Rappahannock County.

  2. Debrajean Norris on Apr. 11, 2013 at 2:14 pm

    Here, here Michele! I am in agreement! I like the sign and was excited to see a little bit of newness to the school, the windows were a great improvement too and very thankful for them! Stop being so afraid of improvement and upgrading for the sake of our children!

  3. Christopher Smith on Apr. 11, 2013 at 3:37 pm

    That sign is barely noticeable. RLEP needs to focus their energies on true environmental eyesores, like the school itself.

  4. Reva on Apr. 11, 2013 at 9:05 pm

    A lot about nothing. There is a point of diminishing returns with old rules and regulations, and the failure to allow things to advance to modernize society. This appears to be one of them. Leave the sign alone. RCHS is there to teach children to live in the future, but to also recognize that the past had good points, and bad points. This is one to let go.

  5. Brandi Day on Apr. 12, 2013 at 8:52 am

    I can’t believe this is such an issue. Removing it now is only going to cost more money. So let’s not go back and debate how that money should have been spent. It’s done. Move on. And it’s not a hazard or a blight on the beauty of the County. It’s nice that not everything in the county had to have stopped progressing in the 1960s.

  6. Vincent Day on Apr. 12, 2013 at 9:16 pm

    The sign has an aesthetic “je ne sais quoi”…ummm…”kinship”…with that pesky Dollar Store they wanted to erect across the road from Gibb Horton’s old place -for those who have been around long enough to remember: “The Hampton Inn”-… oh right, the name has changed: it’s “Sotheby’s” now. Anyway, it’s hard to keep up with the changes.

    But seriously: my opinion is that the sign could use some help. The School Board should consult the Head of the Arts Department for some input for a sign that attracts but doesn’t distract from the road or the surrounding beauty and peace of the landscapes.

    Hi to all my friends!!

  7. Tim Williams on Apr. 22, 2013 at 1:19 pm

    ^ ha! quit being a hippy. not everything in life has to be artwork.

frontroyalbattle on Facebook