 |
|
|
|
SCRUB, Old City Civic
Association, Councilman David Cohen, Christopher Mallios, Mary Cawley
Tracy
v.
ZBA, City of
Philadelphia, HCA, Inc. Universal Outdoor, Inc. and Eller Media Group
769 A.2d 1255 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2001)
UNREPORTED
OPINION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Case History
- March 24, 2006: Still
waiting for removal order of sign by the City.
- October 2, 2001:
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied Eller’s Petition for
Allowance of Appeal.
- December 22, 2000:
The Commonwealth Court reversed the Common Pleas Court and found
that a variance can only be granted to prevent hardship, not to
facilitate financial gain.
- September 15, 2000:
The Common Pleas Court affirmed the decision of the ZBA.
- Eller erected a sign in
compliance with the variance.
- August 25, 1998:
The ZBA issued a variance in order to establish a policy promoting
the development of vacant properties where the building was sold to
a developer at a reduced price, which was made possible by the
seller retaining an easement to advertising on the roof.
-
May 7, 1998:
L & I denied the application on the grounds that the sign would be
within the Vine Street Parkway Area, within 660 feet of an
elementary school and a park, within 500 feet of an existing sign,
and Eller did not propose to remove a sign of equal
footage(14-1604(10), Phila. Code).
- January 8, 1998:
Eller applied for a permit for a 20 foot by 60 foot single faced
atop the roof of an existing vacant building with an existing
outdoor advertising sign.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Background Information
Landowner sold a building to a developer
and, because of a reduced price, retained an easement to advertising on the
roof. In order to promote the development of vacant properties, the ZBA granted
a variance, despite multiple code violations. The Commonwealth Court revoked the
variance because there was only an attempt to facilitate financial gain, and no
hardship.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
