Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/06/1997

Home

I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I z.g, March 25, 1997 -- Page 7 of the protection of the eight-year freeze. The plans had received final approval, and along with it, the benefits of the freeze. The automatic-recision provision did not make the approval conditional. Heritage'.s request for a freeze extension was a time-sensitive issue. When Heritage first appeared before the court, a considerable amount of time remained on the freeze, so there had been no point in asking for an extension. By the time the appeal was resolved, however, only a few months were left. Heritage was entitled to an extension for the length of its legal action; otherwise, its victory would have been a hollow one. Signs -- Sign owners claim sign-building law is unconstitutional Keystone Outdoor Advertising v. Commonwealth Department of Transportation, 687 A.2d 47 (Pennsylvania) 1996 The Thomases owned a billboard that had existed since the 1940s. Made of wood and metal, the billboard face had lights at the bottom. Three wood poles supported the structure. The billboard was located in a residential area as a nonconforming use. In 1992 or 1993, a storm damaged the billboard. Shortly afterward, the Thomases leased the billboard to Keystone Outdoor Advertising Co. Keystone planned to remove the old sign structure and build a new one. The permit for the old sign expired on Dec. 31, 1993. Keystone got a building permit and built a new billboard. It made the billboard from steel and supported it with four steel beams. Keystone also put halogen lights on the structure. The new billboard was about 10 feet from where the old billboard stood. When the Commonwealth Department of Transportation learned of the new sign in July 1993, it ordered Keystone to tear down the new billboard. It revoked the permit for the old sign because it no longer existed. The department denied Keystone's permit application for the new sign. Keystone appealed to a hearing officer. The hearing officer affirmed the permit revocation and the permit denial, ruling Keystone had abandoned the old sign by building a new sign with stronger materials and structural improvements. State law said replacements of nonconforming signs could not be made of stronger materials than the original sign, could not be structurally improved and could not contain any improvements or additions. Under state law, a nonconforming sign that had been improved structurally or changed location was considered abandoned. The hearing officer also ruled that less than 50 percent of the old sign remained intact. In Pennsylvania, when a sign was damaged by vandalism, the owner could repair it, regardless of the damage. However, when a sign was damaged by a natural disaster, the owner couId only repair it if more than 50 percent of the sign remained intact. Keystone appealed, arguing the hearing officer incorrectly determined that less than 50 percent of the old sign remained intact. Keystone contended