The court ruled that:

1. It was wrong for Act 193 to be applied retroactively to SCRUB and other community

2. groups, given the chronology of this case.

3. The applicant did not prove a hardship.

4. The applicant did not prove that the signs were not contrary to the public interest.

Many Philadelphia citizens came down to testify before the Zoning Board and several were

quoted in the published Commonwealth decision, including Gary Smith, an architect and urban

planner, William Faust, a member of the Center City Residents Association, Jean Gavin,

member of the Fox Chase Home Owners Association, John Kline, vice-president of Duncan

Civic Association, Mary Tracy, executive director of SCRUB, and Councilperson David Cohen for

City Council.

William Faust opposed the signs because "the size of the proposed wall wraps will be immense"

and [i]t would dominate views for miles."

Jean Gavin testified that the proposed outdoor advertising signs "will be a real eyesore coming

from the airport."

In addition to granting standing to the community groups, the enbanc panel of judges dismissed

the billboard company's charge that Philadelphia's laws exclude billboards. The court also said that

"therefore, there was no total exclusion of outdoor advertising signs provided they complied

with the sign ordinance"

In dismissing Preston's claims that the billboard ordinance is exclusionary and doesn't allow

a use, the Court said that "the property owner had ignored the undisputed fact that the five

proposed outdoor advertising signs clearly violated numerous provisions of 14-1604 of the code."