Supreme Court Reverses Commonwealth Court in Billboard Case - Does size matter?
In an opinion issued by Chief Justice Castille, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Commonwealth Court and determined that the Zoning Hearing Board of Exeter Twp. was correct in determining that the Exeter Township Zoning Ordinance was exclusionary in limiting the size of a billboard to 25 square feet. The Supreme Court held that the owner of the billboard in question, Land Displays, was successful in presenting substantial evidence to enable the ZHB to conclude that a billboard is a legitimate means of displaying and communicating an advertising message to passing drivers on roads and highways, that a 25 sq. ft. sign is too small to convey this message and that a 300 sq. ft. sign is large enough for that purpose. The Court concluded that Land Displays proved a de facto exclusion.
Had the Supreme Court concluded otherwise it would have had a severe adverse impact upon the billboard industry in Pennsylvania. Ordinances in local municipalities would have been able to prevent industry standard size signs and thereby effectively preventing any new bill board signs to be erected. The industry had filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Land Displays.
The Court also remanded the case back to the Commonwealth Court because it had not rendered a decision on the issue raised by the Township that Route 422 presents a safety issue when signs are erected anywhere along that route and not just in the areas of Route 422 which the ZHB concluded there was no safety issue. We see no evidence on record which would enable the Court to overrule the well reasoned opinion of the ZHB on that issue.
