Agenda - Council - 05/26/2015 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Zoning Bulletin February 25, 2015 1 Volume 9 I Issue 4 Case Note: The court's holding that locality's reasons for denying a siting application need not ap- pear in the same writing that conveys the locality's denial, abrogated (i.e., repealed/ abolished) the following cases: Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, Inc. v. Todd, 244 F.3d 51, 31 Envtl. L. Rep. 20578 (1st Cir. 2001); New Par v. City of Saginaw, 301 F.3d 390, 2002 FED App. 0276P (6th Cir. 2002); and MetroPC' Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, 400 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 2005). Validity of Zoning Regulations — Township's zoning ordinance prohibits all billboards Billboard company challenges zoning prohibition as unconstitutionally exclusionary Citation: In re Bartkowski Inv. Group, Inc., 2014 WL 6865462 (Pa. Comm. Ct. 2014) PENNSYLVANIA (12/08/14)—This case addressed the issues of: (1) whether a township's zoning ordinance was unconstitutionally exclusionary as to billboards; and (2) to what judicial relief is a challenger/developer entitled when a zoning ordinance is found to be unconstitutionally exclusionary. The Background/Facts: Bartkowski Investment Group, Inc. ("BIG") sought to construct several billboards in the Haverford Township (the "Township"). It applied to the Township's Zoning Hearing Board ("ZHB") for approval to construct the billboards. In those applications, BIG raised substantive validity challenges to the Township's zoning ordinance ("ZO"). It alleged that the ZO's municipality -wide exclusion of billboards was unconstitutional. The ZHB ultimately issued a decision denying BIG's substantive validity challenges. Although the ZHB found that the ZO prohibited "billboards," the ZHB held that it did not prohibit all nonaccessory outdoor advertising signs and therefore was not unconstitutional. In any case, the ZHB alternatively concluded that even if the ZO improperly excluded billboards, the Township had demon- strated that health and safety concerns supported the prohibition of BIG's billboards. BIG appealed. The trial court affirmed the ZHB's decision "to the extent that the billboards proposed by [BIG] were not suitable for the proposed sites." BIG again appealed. On appeal, BIG again argued that the ZO was unconsti- tutionally exclusionary to billboards. It also argued that since the ZO was un- constitutional, it was entitled to judicial relief in the form of site -specific relief granting approval of its billboards. DECISION: Judgment of court of common pleas affirmed in part and remanded. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania held that the ZO was unconstitu- ©2015 Thomson Reuters 5