Interstate Outdoor Advertising, L.P. v. Zoning Hearing Board of Warrington Township
39 A.3d 1019
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2012Background
- Interstate appeals Bucks County Court of Common Pleas affirming ZHB Warrington Township's conclusion that the ordinance's off-premises sign provisions do not create a de facto exclusion of billboards.
- Interstate sought permits to construct two 50-foot-high, 672-square-foot (each) billboard signs on two Route 611 parcels in the C-2 District; permits were denied under Section 2210.B of the Ordinance.
- Section 2210.B restricts off-premises signs to PI-1/PI-2 districts, with 50 sq ft area, 25-foot height, and multiple setbacks.
- Board granted partial relief by striking three setback provisions but held the 50 sq ft/25 ft limits did not constitute a de facto exclusion; evidence on industry standard was inconclusive.
- Interstate presented witnesses (notably Gerber) asserting industry standard billboard size is 672 sq ft and 50 ft height; Township presented DePallo who supported smaller, safer, and aesthetically suitable signs.
- Trial court affirmed the Board; this appeal follows.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the ordinance’s 50 sq ft/25 ft limits create a de facto exclusion? | Interstate contends the limits bar effective billboards; industry standard supports 672 sq ft. | Board found the limits do not effectively exclude billboards and that conforming signs can convey messages. | No de facto exclusion; substantial evidence supports Board. |
| Did striking three setbacks affect the de facto exclusion analysis? | Removal of setbacks negates viable off-premises placement, creating exclusion. | Even with setbacks struck, remaining size/height limits do not exclude a permissible use. | Board's partial relief still sustains finding no de facto exclusion. |
| Is industry-standard size evidence necessary to assess functionality of signs under the ordinance? | Industry standard 672 sq ft proves the 50 sq ft cap is exclusionary. | Industry standards are probative but not determinative; other evidence shows 50 sq ft can convey messages effectively. | Evidence supports substantial relation to public welfare and rejects de facto exclusion. |
| Can economic feasibility alone establish de facto exclusion? | Non-conforming larger signs would be more profitable; economy supports exclusion. | Economics of billboard placement is not controlling; location planning matters. | Economic feasibility did not establish exclusion; Board properly weighed planning and profitability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Township of Exeter v. Zoning Hearing Board of Exeter Township, 599 Pa. 568 (Pa. 2009) (two-step de facto exclusion framework and emphasis on substantial evidence)
- Norate Corp. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of Upper Moreland Twp., 417 Pa. 397 (Pa. 1965) (billboards regulate public safety and aesthetics under police power)
- Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490 (U.S. 1981) (government may regulate billboards to address safety and aesthetics)
- Lamar Advertising of Penn, LLC v. Zoning Hearing Board of the Borough of Deer Lake, 915 A.2d 705 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (standard of review: substantial evidence and abuse of discretion)