 |
|
|
Case History
-
October 13, 2005: Common
Pleas order dated November 19, 2003 was vacated and returned to
the trial court for further clarification of the legal issues
brought by Keystone.
-
In attempt to get a second bite of
the apple, the owners Hehl Trucking and Keystone
Outdoor Advertising have applied for a new variance
to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. The Zoning Board
has not issued a hearing date on this request
because they believe the case has already been
resolved through extensive litigation. Meanwhile,
the city has taken enforcement action and Judge Alan
K. Silberstein granted injunctive relief to the
city, which the billboard company appealed, on the
grounds that the city had not filed a response to
Keystone's new matter and counterclaim.
- Although the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania has found the non-accessory use illegal, the landowners
continue to use non-accessory advertisements
-
October 29, 2002:
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied landowners’ Petition for
Allowance of Appeal
-
October 11, 2001:
The Commonwealth Court found that the proposed use was more than
dimensional and that even if it was purely dimensional, a showing
that property can be used more profitably does not automatically
satisfy the Hertzberg test
-
Landowners appealed to the
Commonwealth Court arguing that change to the zoning was a
dimensional change and not a use change, thus subject to a lesser
standard to prove hardship under Hertzberg
- September 21, 2000:
On remand the Common Pleas Court reversed the Zoning Board and
revoked the variance on the grounds that the landowners had failed
to prove unnecessary hardship and that the sign would not be
contrary to the public interest
- April 5, 1999:
On appeal to the Commonwealth court, it was decided that SCRUB had
standing as taxpayers in the City of Philadelphia and the case was
remanded to the Common Pleas Court
-
Febuary 11,
1998: SCRUB’s appeal to
the Common Pleas Court was squashed on the grounds of SCRUB’s lack
of standing
- Landowners constructed
advertisements on the signs to comply with the variance
- The conditions of the variance
were that the converted sign would not be used to advertise tobacco
products, alcohol, or adult entertainment and that the landowners
would not build any more signs on the land, even if they had the
right.
- After August 18, 1997:
The ZBA granted a conditional variance to the landowners
- Landowners applied to the ZBA
for a variance with testimony that the sign would offset some of the
landowners’ expenses
- L& I denied the application
because the sign exceeded the allowable height and size for
non-accessory signs (14-604 (5)(b), Phila. Code) and the sign is
within 660 of a recreational area (14-604 (6)(a), Phila. Code)
- May 7, 1997:
Landowners applied to L & I for a permit to convert an 80 foot high,
2,280 square foot, free-standing, double faced, internally
illuminated accessory sign to a non-accessory use
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
