In re the Bartkowski Investment Group, Inc.
106 A.3d 230
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2014Background
- Bartkowski Investment Group, Inc. (BIG) applied to erect four 14' x 48' (672 sq ft) billboards at sites on West Chester Pike and Lancaster Avenue in Haverford Township; Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB) held 27 hearings and denied BIG’s substantive validity challenge to the zoning ordinance (ZO).
- Haverford’s ZO defines commercial billboards as off‑premises advertising and generally prohibits off‑premises advertising signs; the ZHB and parties agreed the ZO effectively excludes billboards municipality‑wide.
- Township witnesses (police, traffic/human‑factors expert Waehtel, planner Comitta, engineer Pennoni) testified about traffic volumes, driver distraction risks, adverse visual impacts on historic/scenic resources, and structural/safety concerns specific to BIG’s proposed signs and sites.
- ZHB found the ZO did not prohibit all non‑accessory outdoor advertising and alternatively concluded that BIG’s proposed billboards were unsuitable on health, safety, and aesthetic grounds for the proposed sites.
- Trial court affirmed the ZHB insofar as BIG’s proposed billboards were unsuitable for the proposed sites but did not fully address whether the ZO’s municipality‑wide exclusion was justified nor fashion alternative site‑specific relief under the MPC.
- Commonwealth Court held the ZO’s blanket exclusion of billboards unconstitutional because Haverford failed to prove the exclusion bore a substantial relationship to public health, safety, morality, or welfare; affirmed denial of BIG’s specific plans for the proposed sites but remanded to trial court to consider alternative site‑specific relief under Section 1006‑A(c) of the MPC.
Issues
| Issue | BIG's Argument | Haverford/Intervenors' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ZO is unconstitutionally exclusionary as to billboards | ZO bans billboards municipality‑wide; ordinance is de jure exclusion and therefore invalid absent municipal justification | ZO does not exclude all non‑accessory outdoor advertising; evidence of site‑specific harms justifies the ban | ZO is exclusionary as to billboards and invalid — Haverford failed to show a municipality‑wide justification |
| Whether site‑specific evidence can justify a municipality‑wide ban | Site suitability is irrelevant to the constitutional question; municipality must show exclusion justified everywhere | Site‑specific evidence (traffic, aesthetics, structural risks) demonstrates billboards are inappropriate in Township | Court held site‑specific evidence insufficient to justify a blanket ban; such evidence is relevant to relief but not to the validity question |
| Whether BIG is entitled to mandatory approval of its proposed billboards under MPC §1006‑A(c) | Success on exclusionary challenge entitles BIG to judicial relief (approval) unless municipality proves the proposed use injurious | Trial court/ZHB and intervenors argue trial court properly denied approval of BIG’s proposed signs given record showing harms; relief is discretionary under §1006‑A | Court rejected automatic full approval; affirmed denial of BIG’s proposed plans but held trial court must consider granting partial or alternative relief under §1006‑A(c) |
| Scope of trial court’s role under §1006‑A when ordinance is invalid | Trial court must exercise de novo discretion to fashion relief and may receive new evidence or employ experts; not bound by ZHB fact‑finding | Some argue ZHB findings and record may be relied on; others argue trial court may defer or remand elements to local bodies | Court: trial court has broad, nond eferential discretion to fashion relief, may hold hearings, use experts, or refer elements back; it erred by failing to consider "approved as to some elements" relief and must now do so on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Interstate Outdoor Advertising v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Warrington Twp., 39 A.3d 1019 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (standard of review for ZHB factual findings/substantive‑validity challenges)
- Township of Exeter v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Exeter Twp., 962 A.2d 653 (Pa. 2009) (blanket billboard prohibitions require justification; exclusion must bear substantial relationship to public health, safety, welfare)
- Adams Outdoor Advertising, Ltd. v. Hanover Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 633 A.2d 240 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (successful challenger to exclusionary ordinance entitled to relief unless municipality proves proposed use injurious; trial court may remand for permit)
- Casey v. Zoning Hearing Board of Warwick Township, 328 A.2d 464 (Pa. 1974) (landmark on judicial relief for invalid zoning — courts may grant definitive relief to successful challengers)
- The Piper Group, Inc. v. Bedminster Township Board of Supervisors, 30 A.3d 1083 (Pa. 2011) (§1006‑A gives trial courts flexible discretion; plaintiff not automatically entitled to full plan approval)