Status of Marple Billboards Case Against BIG

BROOMALL–Filling in for Solicitor Adam Matlawski at Monday night's commissioners meeting was Jim Byrne–who also represents Marple and Newtown townships in the billboard case against Bartkowski Investment Group (BIG).

Byrne said unlike many other townships, Marple has already been to the Commonwealth Court with BIG on the billboards case. The latest decision on the case came back in favor with the township.

"Now we're back in the Common Pleas Court on a declaratory judgment action that was filed by the BIG company and there's going to be a trial on that–it's a non-jury trial and the trial probably won't take that long on that case," said Byrne.

The trial date has been scheduled for Aug. 6th at the Court of Common Pleas.

The billboard battle has been more than two years running, in which BIG filed billboard applications in several neighboring towns of Marple including , Havertown, Springfield and Bryn Mawr townships. In addition, Byrne updated the commissioners and public about the status of the billboard case in neighboring towns.

"There's been some billboard litigation in surrounding towns as many of you all know," said Byrne.

but is currently now being appealed to the Commonwealth Court. Briefs are due at the end of June with a decision expected by the end of the year.

In but BIG currently has an appeal pending in the Court of Common Pleas.

In along West Chester Pike in Newtown Square. But, according to Newtown Township Manager Mike Trio,

The billboard case is still pending before the Newtown's Zoning Hearing Board, in which a letter was recently sent out to protesting parties by BIG to continue the May hearing to sometime in June as an expert witness who was supposed to testify at the hearing had recently passed away.

"The litigation is ongoing and it's not just limited to Delaware County," said Byrne. "There have been cases in Chester County and Montgomery County...so they're out there really pushing hard but we're trying to push back."

According to Byrne, the state of Pennsylvania allows a municipality to prohibit billboards, however, the municipality will have to justify prohibiting billboards with good reason.

"You can't just do it without no reason. So, you have to prove a nexus with public health safety and welfare–and that's kind of what's been going on in a lot of these cases," said Byrne.

Commissioners President Michael Molinaro also shared that the significance in fighting the billboards case.

"Let's say billboards are permitted...what's going to be our ability, as a township, to control content?" asked Molinaro to Byrne.

Byrne responded that the fight to control content on the billboards will be very difficult.

Marple argues its amended sign ordinance–amended on Jan. 5, 2009–was filed valid to this case denying BIG's proposed seven billboards in the township along West Chester Pike and Sproul Road, while BIG challenged Marple's amended ordinance.

The locations of the seven billboards that BIG proposes in Marple Township include locations on the 2300 block of West Chester Pike, 2500 block of West Chester Pike, 2600 block of West Chester Pike, 2500 block of Summit Avenue and 1900 block of Sproul Road and two on the 2100 block of Sproul Road.

, partially siding with the Marple Township Board of Commissioners, until a three-judge-panel at the appellate level remanded the case back down to the Court of Common Pleas with Judge George Pagano after ruling that further arguments were needed.

On Nov. 22, 2011, Pagano filed an order denying BIG's motion for a summary judgment and site-specific relief request against Marple Township.