Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/06/1996

Home

Page 6 -- December 1995 Z.B. to the zonim office. The zoning administrator told the employee the billboard would be al owed. Soon after, Roseberry received from the administrator a sign erectio~ permit -- but not a zoning certificate -- allowing it to build the proposed b~lilboard. (Under the ordinance, before work could begin the zoning officer had t~ issue a zoning certificate stating that the use complied with all applicable r.equirements.) Roseberry also received copies of pertinent ordi- nance provisions regulating billboards. Several months later, Roseberry told the administrator it wanted to build a different billboard instead. The new one would be freestanding, closer to the front of theiproperty, and would advertise a business not conducted on the premises. Tile sign would read: "Kenny Ross and Sons, Chevrolet, GEO, Ford, Over 1,200 ~ars and Trucks in Stock, Route 30, Irwin, PA." The administrator never issuec~ a' sign erection permit or a zoning certificate for the new bill- board. How~ever, Advanced Sign Company began preparing the site for the new sign aft{er getting approval from the state Department of Transportation. During the site preparations, and after Advanced Sign made the billboard, the administ,,.'rator ordered Roseberry to stop building. The administrator said the new billboard violated the zoning ordinance because (among other things) it was too big, it did not adhere to the approved plan, no zoning certificate was ever issued, pnd there was no valid building permit. Roseber{y appealed to the Zoning Hearing Board, claiming it had a vested right in the p~rmit for the original billboard. Roseberry argued the administrator's order was u~just because Roseberry was a good faith permit holder that relied on an invalidl building permit. The board held that the administrator properly issued the cease and desist order. The o}'iginal permit was improperly issued because the originally pro- posed sign ~as too big for the property's size. The board said the billboard could be no !larger than 110 square feet. It also said Roseberry had no vested right in the sign erection permit because the Advanced Sign employee had not exercised dub diligence or acted in good faith when he applied for the permits. The board sa~id the Advanced Sign employee, who dealt with municipalities on a regular basis and received copies of the ordinance, should have known the billboard did not comply. The board also found that no zoning certificate had been issued ~for the sign, a requirement under the zoning ordinance. Roseber~y appealed, asking the court to overturn the board's decision. The court did. It~said although the billboard violated the ordinance's size limit, Roseberry h~td a vested right in the permit. The court said the board improperly held the AdV;anced Sign employee to a higher standard than the general public because of hls professional status, and that the employee did exercise due dili- gence and acit in good faith. The court held that Roseberry should be allowed to build the sign based on the second set of plans. The city ~ppealed, claiming Roseberry did not meet the conditions neces- sary to estab!lish a vested right. Roseberry had to show it used due diligence, acted in good faith, and spent substantial funds in reliance on the permit.