Background Information
Although the owner never applied for a permit, a 65' X 150' non-accessory
sign was erected in 1999 on a wall of the building at 417 North 7th Street.
In 2000, the owner applied for a permit for another sign identical in
proportion. L&I rejected the application because it violated certain sections of
the law, including;
- Section 14-1604.1(5) which bans signs within the Vine Street Parkway
Special Control area;
- Section 14-506(1)(a)(.2) because the property, zoned L-4, does not
permit signs as a use;
- Section 14-1604(10) which requires that existing signs of equal or
greater area be removed to erect a new sign when the Defendants removed only
1,478 square feet when they erected the 9,750 square foot wall wrap;
- Section 14-1604(5) because the wall wrap at 9,750 square feet far
exceeds the maximum allowed sign area of 1,000 square feet;
- Section 14-1604(6) which requires that the bottom edge of the sign be no
more than 25 feet above the road surface and 20 feet in height above that
bottom edge when the bottom edge of the wall wrap is 45 feet from the road
surface and the wall wrap rises 65 feet above the bottom edge.
On April 5, 2001 the applicant requested a variance, arguing that even though
the sign violated the zoning code, a variance should be granted due to hardship.
Myron Berman, a building representative, testified that the façade of the
building required repair and replacement of windows at the cost of $4.8 million
and that rental income was not sufficient to do the repairs. The sign revenue,
he argued, was essential for renovations to be made to the building. Plaintiffs
presented testimony of Gray Smith, who asserted that the sign violated the
zoning code and would reduce the quality of the visual and aesthetic
environment. The ZBA granted the variance on the grounds that the Applicants
would suffer an unnecessary hardship if the variance was not granted.
The Court of Common Pleas reversed the ZBA, holding that because the building
had 70-80% occupation of the building by commercial tenants, a loss of the sign
revenue would not constitute an unnecessary hardship.
In their appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the owner argued that a variance
was not necessary because Philadelphia's code regulating outdoor advertising
dealt only with billboards and not wall wraps. Additionally, they argued wall
wraps were more like banners. Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson wrote that
this argument lacked merit and that wall wraps fall within Philadelphia's
regulated definition of signs. He also upheld the Common Pleas decision and
disagreed with the applicants that the trial court erred by reversing the ZBA's
grant of the variance and as such the Board erred as a matter of law by granting
the variance when the applicants did not demonstrate necessary hardship.
Applicants then filed an Application for Stay and Injunctive Relief, as well
as a Petition for Allowance of Appeal. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied
both the application and the petition. In effect, the initial decision of L&I
was affirmed.
Continuing their string of appeals, the applicants filed a petition for a writ
of certiorari to the US Supreme Court. This was denied, effectively ending the
litigation. Yet, the enforcement action remains to be undertaken.
Upon receipt of the decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the City
of Philadelphia filed an action in the Court of Common Pleas seeking enforcement
of the Supreme Court's decision (Jan. 2003). On March 1, 2004 Judge Alan K.
Silberstein ordered the wall wrap removed, the owner fined over $65,000, and all
advertising revenue forfeited and placed in a trust for the benefit of the
citizens of Philadelphia.
|
