Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/05/1995

Home

Page 8- June 15, 1995 Z.B. The lower court was wrong to grant Futerfas judgment without a trial and order Shultis to stop operations. Futerfas did not give any specific, detailed evidence that his property value declined due to Shultis' business activities. Also, Shuttis was entitled to a trial because it was unclear whether the sawmill substantially interfered with Futerfas' use of his property and whether Shultis' use was unreasonable. Little Joseph t~ealty v. Town of J3abyIon, 395 N.Y.S. 2d 428. Copart Indus. v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., 394 N.Y.S.2d 169. Fees -- Billboard Owner Challenges Annual Fee Martin Media v. Hernpfield Township Zoning Hearing Board, 65] A.2d 1171 (Pe. nnsylva~tia) 1994 · tn 199I, Hempfield Township, Pa., passed an ordinance to regulate sign placement. The/aw imposed a $100 annual fee for billboards. Martin Media owned 62 billboards in the township. After the company paid the fee for each of its signs, it appealed to the township Zoning Hearing Board, challenging the ordinance's validity. Martin Media claimed the fee was arbitrary and had no reasonable relationship to the township's enforcement costs, At the hearing, the township presented evidence that its actual administra- tive cost for each sign was $105.86. This fee was computed through the amount of time it took to find, inspect, and complete a report on each billboard. The township also considered the cost of phone calls, office supplies, advertising the ordinance, and operating motor vehicles, as well as the fair rental value of the part of the building used to administer the ordinance. Martin Media said that the estimated time to complete an inspection and report was about 15 min- utes. The board dismissed the appeal after finding that the fee was reasonably 'related to actual enforcement costs. Martin Media sued the board, arguing that its decision was not supported by evidence. The court dismissed Martin Media's case, finding that the evidence sup- ported the fee for the first year the ordinance existed. This was because the township had unique expenses that year. Factors like the time it took to find the billboards and the building's fair rental value could not be factors in future years because they either were one-time costs or were not actual expenses. Martin Media appealed. DECISION: Reversed and returned to the lower court. The trial court did not decide the issue presented by Martin Media's appeal. Martin Media asked the court to decide whether the ordinance that imposed a yearly $100 fee was valid. Instead, the court decided that the fee was valid for one year only. This impermissibly modified the ordinance, in violation of the state Municipalities Planning Code. Talley v. Commonwealth, 553 A.2d 518 (1989).