Title: Twp of Exeter v. ZHB of Exeter, App of: Land Displays, Inc. (Dissenting Opinion)

State: pennsylvania

Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Document:

[J-73-2008] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT TOWNSHIP OF EXETER v. ZONING HEARING BOARD OF EXETER TOWNSHIP AND LAND DISPLAYS, INC. APPEAL OF: LAND DISPLAYS, INC. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 65 MAP 2007 Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court entered at No. 2545 CD 2005, on November 1, 2006, reversing the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, Pennsylvania, at No. 05- 13146, entered on November 21, 2005, affirming the decision of the Zoning Hearing Board of Exeter Township entered on August 15, 2005 911 A.2d 201 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) ARGUED: May 12, 2008 DISSENTING OPINION MR. JUSTICE EAKIN DECIDED: January 22, 2009 I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the 25-square-foot limitation on sign size in § 105.2 amounts to a de facto exclusion of billboards. The majority agrees with the Commonwealth Court’s finding “industry size standards are not automatically controlling in determining what size sign restriction can be deemed de facto exclusionary,” Majority Slip Op., at 14, and further notes, “[t]he record does not support the notion that a restriction on the size of signs must meet industry standards to pass constitutional muster.” Id. However, it appears industry size standards have nevertheless dictated the present outcome. [J-73-2008] - 2 Land Displays’ experts testified it is impossible to market billboard advertising on the route in question unless the sign is at least 300 square feet; the Board found this evidence established the operation of a billboard of lesser square footage is impossible and, in effect, a de facto exclusion of billboards. Like the Commonwealth Court, I would find the Board’s determination unsupported by substantial evidence; thus, Land Displays did not overcome its burden to show § 105.2 is unconstitutional. The testimony of two industry experts, citing alleged national standards of an industry where profits and sign square footage are directly proportional, falls short of overcoming the presumption in favor of § 105.2’s constitutionality. The Commonwealth Court has held a “zoning authority can establish rigorous objective standards in its ordinance for size ….” Adams Outdoor Advertising, LP v. Zoning Hearing Board of Smithfield Township, 909 A.2d 469, 477-78 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006); Atlantic Refining & Marketing Corp. v. Board of Commissioners of York Township, 608 A.2d 592, 594 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (upholding validity of ordinance with 32-square-foot size sign limit). Advertising signs are a permitted use under § 105.2, and billboards fall under this classification. The sign size limit, as the photographs of conforming 25-square-foot advertising signs in the Township evidence, precludes only those signs larger than 25 square feet and does not amount to a total ban of billboards, defeating Land Displays’ claim. As it was within the Township’s authority to limit the size of advertising signs, it was under no duty to do so pursuant to national advertising industry standards. As I find the Board’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence, I would hold Land Displays did not meet its burden to prove § 105.2 unconstitutional.