Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/04/2007

Home

Page 8 - December 24, 2006 Z.B. application was for either a 300- or 672-square foot billboard, whicb were the standard sizes in the industry. All of the applications were denied base~ on the township's sign ordinance. The sign ordinance prohibited "any. side of a directional or advertising sign from exceeding 25 square feet." The ordinance also placed the sa1;I1e;size re- striction on freestanding signs in commercial or industrial zones. Land Displays appealed five of the denials, challenging the vaijdity of the ordinance. At the hearing, Land Displays argued that, by limiting ,the size pf billboards to a size much smaller than industry norms, the township !was essen- tially. excluding the use of billboards altogether. Land Displays ;st~ted j that national sponsors would not contract with them for a 25-square foo~ blllbQatd. The township countered that the .ordinance reflected tpublic safety rrllmdates, and it produc-ed a number of examples of signs that conformed to the ordinance .to bolster its argument that the ordinance was not. exclusionary. However, the zoning board found that the ordinance did amount tp all uncon- stitutional exclusion of billboards. The board stated that Land Displays had to be gninted the relief it sought unless the township could show that doiIlg ~owould pose a threat to public safety, health, or welfare. Based on evidence presented with regard to the proposed locations of the billboards, the board determihedthat the 300-square foot signs should be allowed, but that no .new billboarFls could be constructed on a specific stretch ofbighway due to existing traffic cOQ.gestion and numerous driving distractions due to a high level of commercial d~velopment. The township appealed the board's decision to the court, and the 'decision was affrrmed. The township appealed again, asking that the court uphold the validity of the sign ordinance. DECISION: Reversed. It was widely recognized in Pennsylvania that zoning ordin~qes had a presumption of constitutionality and that the burden of proving othe~ise was extremely heavy. Here, Land Displays had to show that the ordinance :com.- pletely banned a legitimate use. The appeals .court found that LaPd :Displays had not met the burden of proving a constitutional violation; the, decision of the lower court was reversed. The court note~ ~at the fact that the size of standard industrY s,igns was far larger than that allowed by the sign ordinance was ,irrelevant. hidu~trY: StaIl- dards did not control local conditions. Additionally, Land Displa~s ~ould not establish the effective exclusion of a legitimate use, since the tqwnship pre- sented evidence of several billboards conforming to the ordinance. It was not enough for the company to argue that it would hav~ been m.oree,co~omically lucrative for it to place larger signs in the township; a financiaLiP-tere~t alone did not render the ordinance exclusionary. see also: Macioce v. Zoning Hearing Board of the Borough of Baldwin, 850 A.2d 882 (2004). @ 2006 West, a Thomson business. Quinlan ™ is a Thomson West brand. Any reproduction i~ prohibited. 156 {, 't . ".