Callowhill Neighborhood Ass'n v. City of Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment
118 A.3d 1214
Pa. Commw. Ct.2015Background
- Objectors appeal a ZBA decision upholding L&I's permit to convert Steen's sign at 1113 Vine Street to digital format.
- The sign is a two‑sided illuminated outdoor advertising sign in a G-2 Industrial district with a preexisting 1985 permit.
- A 2007 consent order and a December 17, 2007 memorandum found the eight disputed signs lawful; City notified L&I accordingly.
- L&I issued the digital-face permit in March 2012 as of right; Objectors challenged on multiple grounds after two hearings.
- ZBA concluded the sign remained legal and that L&I properly issued the permit; trial court affirmed; standing issues were addressed, with Chinese Christian Church found to have standing due to proximity and potential light impact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of objectors to appeal the ZBA decision | Objectors aggrieved by nearby sign; SCRUB/Spahn require direct, immediate interest | City/Steen contend standing was not properly preserved; only aggrieved parties may appeal | Chinese Christian Church has standing; others may have standing; overall standing not fatal to appeal. |
| Legality of the sign and binding effect of the 2007 consent order | Sign is legal per 2007 consent order; consent order binds City and cannot be collaterally attacked | Sign’s legality under the Zoning Code was unsettled; consent order not binding on objectors | Sign is legal and lawfully in existence; 2007 consent order controls and cannot be collaterally attacked. |
| Whether L&I needed to consider potential structural changes for digital conversion | Converting to digital would require structural changes; permit issuance should hinge on such plans | Permit issued as of right for a legal sign; building plans/structural changes not required for zoning permit | L&I was not required to review structural changes for a zoning permit; no abuse of discretion by ZBA. |
| Reliance on May 10, 2007 L&I Memorandum for interpretation | Memorandum was an improper, unpublished opinion; should not bind current interpretation | L&I interpretations are entitled deference regardless of publication status | L&I memo properly interpreted the Zoning Code; deference appropriate; no improper reliance. |
| Whether the digital conversion violates lighting provisions of the Zoning Code | Digital signs fail to meet illuminated sign regulations and surrounding-residence glare rules | Sign falls within the Code’s framework for signs with changing messages; proper subsection applies | L&I interpretation of 14-1604(8)(b) governs digital signs; conversion not unlawfully treated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Spahn v. Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment, 977 A.2d 1132 (Pa. 2009) (aggrieved party standard for standing in zoning appeals; aggrieved requires substantial, direct, immediate interest)
- William Penn Parking Garage, Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh, 346 A.2d 269 (Pa. 1975) (standing requires causal connection and direct harm)
- SCRUB v. Zoning Hearing Board of Adjustment of City of Philadelphia, 951 A.2d 398 (Pa.Cmwlth.2008) (nearby/inner-urban proximity can establish aggrievement in zoning)
- Weber v. City of Philadelphia, 262 A.2d 299 (Pa. 1970) (deference to administrative interpretations; municipal discretion not to be disturbed absent bad faith)
- Nettleton v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Pittsburgh, 828 A.2d 1033 (Pa. 2003) (ZBA credibility determinations are within its province; review for substantial evidence)
- Summit Township Taxpayers Association v. Summit Township Board of Supervisors, 411 A.2d 1263 (Pa.Cmwlth.1980) (settlement overlays; non-party rights require notice and participation)
- Boeing Co. v. Zoning Hearing Board of Ridley Township, 822 A.2d 153 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003) (non-parties bound by settlements only if they had notice and opportunity to participate)