There have been 4 hearings before the ZBA on applicant's request to install a billboard on property in the Food Distribution Center. The last hearing was held on June 28th.
The next hearing is scheduled for August 9th, at 12:30pm at 1515 Arch Street. Keystone has finished presenting its case, and SCRUB's arguments will be heard at the next hearing.
The applicants in this case have used as a defense recent legislation that challenges taxpayer standing. The following is a SCRUB release regarding the defense. Read more about SCRUB's work on taxpayer standing here.
Press Releases
June 7, 2006
(Philadelphia) On Wednesday, June 7, 2006 a panel of seven Commonwealth Court Judges heard oral arguments regarding the right of Philadelphia taxpayers and community groups to appeal decisions made by Philadelphia's Zoning Board of Adjustments. The court agreed to hear the standing challenge raised by Preston Ship and Rail, for the construction of 5 mega-sized outdoor advertising wall wraps, a total area of 38,744 square feet, on the exterior of the Tidewater Grain Building near the Philadelphia International Airport. The proposed variance would violate 26 provisions of Philadelphia's zoning code, including size, height, and number of structures.
President Judge James Colins ordered both parties to reappear before the Commonwealth Court and present arguments to a seven member panel of Judges. A three judge panel heard arguments for the case on February 27, 2006 but were unable to reach a final decision. The en Banc Court will write its decision as to whether Act 193 of 2004 removed the longstanding rights of citizens and community groups to challenge decisions of the Zoning Board of Adjustments and other Philadelphia agencies and if granted standing, whether there is a unique hardship on the property to warrant allowing the exessive amount of signage. Many thanks to pro bono Attorney Samuel C. Stretton for spending many hours of time representing SCRUB, Friends of FDR Park, Logan Square Civic, CCRA, Councilman Cohen, Phil Straus, Mary Tracy and
Act 193 of 2004, (formerly called HB 1954) included a stealth amendment added by Lebanon State Senator Chip Brightbill of the Senate Appropriations Committee which changed the purpose of HB 1954 from helping the city raise the amount of fines for code violations, to meddling with Philadelphia’s Home Rule Charter and the long existing right of “Philadelphia taxpayers” to challenge Zoning Board decisions. Mary Tracy, Director of SCRUB (Society Created to Reduce Urban Blight) said that the bill was a blatant attempt by the billboard industry to silence citizens by setting new legal hurdles for community groups that will complicate and possibly eliminate a citizen’s ability to challenge zoning decisions." SCRUB and its neighborhood partners believe that lawmakers who supported this amendment are trying to tip the system to benefit special interests in Philadelphia.
October 26, 2005
It’s here. The challenge to Philadelphia’s “any taxpayer standing”
A coalition of community groups
railed against the midnight passage last November
of a stealth amendment to HB 1954 which attempted to remove the “any taxpayer”
standing in Philadelphia. They knew it would only be a matter time before the
other shoe dropped. It finally fell with a heavy thud on Wednesday, October 19,
2005. when a local billboard company challenged the standing of a South
Philadelphia community group at a hearing before Philadelphia’s Zoning Board of
Adjustment (ZBA).
Two attorneys for Keystone Advertising grilled the executive director of Wecacoe Community Development Corporation, a South Philadelphia CDC established in 1984, whose boundaries include the property where the billboard company seeks a variance. In rapid succession, they shot questions at Fred Druding such as: “Where do you live? Precisely how many blocks from your home is the property seeking a variance? Can you mark this location on our map? Will you be able to see this site from your home? What are the boundaries of your CDC? Where is the office located? Can you mark the location on the map? Does the organization receive any public funding? Where do its members live? How many members are present today?”
The attorneys asked why more members were not in attendance. “ If people care about this issue” they stated, “then they need to be here so that we can cross-examine each and everyone on standing.” The extensive line of questioning was a chilling reminder of the tactics used to prevent community groups from taking an active role in zoning prior to the 1991 victory by SCRUB and CCRA in a landmark Commonwealth Court decision reaffirming the rights of Philadelphia’s taxpayers and community groups to challenge zoning decisions.
If the billboard industry is successful and wins this case by invoking Act 193 of 2004 (previously called Bill 1954), citizens and community groups will be subjected to similar scrutiny at the whim of any attorney representing a client in a controversial zoning case. The issue will not be whether the zoning board properly applies the laws affecting neighborhood zoning but rather, whether the citizens or community organizations have a right to challenge an applicant’s request for a variance that violates zoning laws.
As a result, community groups will be forced to litigate twice: first to prove standing and only if successful will they be allowed to appeal the actual decision made by the zoning board. Double litigation will quickly exhaust the scarce resources of community groups working to shape the future of their neighborhoods.