Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/01/2016

Home

r November 10, 2016 1 Volume 10 1 Issue 21 Zoning Bulletin achieved less effectively absent the regulation."Here, the court found that al- though aesthetics and public safety were substantial government interests,those interests were simply invoked by the Township with "scant factual support informing its decision-making process."°[S]im ly invoking aesthetics andpub- lie safety to ban a type of sign, without more,does not carry the day,"said the court. Here,the Township,citing aesthetic and public safety concerns,permit- ted static billboards to be installed in a single zoning district proximate to the interstate highway but prohibited digital billboards in the same zone.The court could find no evidence supporting "how three static billboards [were] more aesthetically palatable than a single digital billboard."The court further found that motor vehicle accident statistics alone failed to prove a publYt safety argu- ment as to the need to ban digital billboards.Finally,the court noted that,con- trary to the Township's assertions, standards existed to inform the Township's decision making with regard to aesthetic and public safety concerns related to digital billboards (including New Jersey Department of Transportation promulgated regulations governing off-premises digital billboards and a digital billboard erected along the interstate highway in a neighboring municipality). Citing the absence of factual support informing the Township's decision- making on its aesthetic and public safety concerns with regard to digital billboards, the Supreme Court of New Jersey declared the Ordinance's ban on digital billboards in the Township to be unconstitutional. See also: Ward a Rock Against Racism,491 U.S. 781, 109 S. Ct.2746, 105 L. Ed. 2d 661 (1989). See also: Clark a Comununity for Creative Nora-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 104 S. Ct. 3065, 82 L. Ed.2d 221 (1984). t See also: Central Hudson Gas &Elec. Corp. a Public Service Comunission of New York, 447 U.S. 557, 100 S. Ct. 2343, 65 L. Ed. 2d 341, 6 Media L. Rep. (BNA)1497, 34 Pub. Util.Rep. 4th(PUR)178(1980). Oil and Gas/Public Utilities/Eminent Domain—Citizens challenge provisions of Act 13 Sections challenged include those related to municipal regulation of the oil and gas industry and to eminent domain of private land by the oil and gas industry Citation: Robinson Township v. Commonwealth, 2016 WL 5597310 (Pa. 2016) PENNSYLVANIA(09/28/16)—This case addressed the issue of whether certain sections of Pennsylvania's Act 13—related to state oversight of munici- pal regulation of the oil and gas industry and to eminent domain of private land by the oil and gas industry—were valid and enforceable. The Background/P'acts: In February 2012, the Pennsylvania General As- sembly passed Act 13 (which is codified at 58 Pa.C.S. §§2301-3504).Act 13 8 ©2016 Thomson Reuters