Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/06/2008

Home

"~,, - '. \ I. } February 25, 20081 Volume 21 No.4 adjacent to residential properties. Thus, the court found, it was a logical candidate for the C-T zone. The court concluded that the city's decision to put the Property into the C- T zone was a proper exercise of its discretion within its legislated zoning powers. See also: Veseskis v. Bristol Zoning Commission, 168 Conn. 358, 362 A.2d 538 (1975). Nonconforming use-Enlargement-Company claims right to expansion of nonconforming use when proposing change to billboards Citation: Lamar Advertising Co. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Municipality of Monroe vi lIe, 2007 WL 4372790 (pa. Commw. Ct. 2007) Lamar owned and operated advertising billboards in Monro- eville. Lamar subIpitted 17 separate sign applications to Monro- eville. The applications sought to remove the existing convention- al billboard di~plays and replace them with -light emitting diode (LED) displays. The LED displays wouid require electric services, 1"./\. cables and air conditioning units that Lamar would need to bolt ) to the billboards. Lamar's applications stated that it did not intend to change the superstructUre of the billboards. Monroeville denied the applications. The denial stated that because Lamar's proposed conversions were alterations to billboards, the zoning ordinaJ,1ce required that Lamar had to obtain a conditional use and site plan approval before a building permit could be considered. Section 106 required compliance with all provisions of the zon- ing ordinance before constructing, altering or converting a struc- ture. Sections 301.2 and 302 of the zoning ordinance required people to obtain a variance to expand a nonconforming structure. Section 502 said a zoning permit must be obtained before construc- tion, reconstruction, alteration or enlargement of any structure. Section 306 required a site plan approval before the issuance of a zoning permit, except for existing structures where there was no proposed new construction or addition to structures. Section 601 defined "structure" as explicitly including billboards. Section 601 defined "sign face" as the part of the billboard on which the graph- ics and written material are placed. Section 307.14 said billboards may be permitted as a conditional use when approved. .__/) Lamar appealed to Monroeville's Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB). .- Lamar argued that because the LED screen was to simply replace the vinyl advertising copy, it was a modernization to a lawful non- conforming use to which Lamar was entitled as of right. Lamar 7 159