Adams Outdoor Advertising v. ZHB of Stroudsburg 392 C.D. 2020 (Pa.Cwlth., May 17, 2021)
Case challenging total ban on annoying and inappropriate LED billboards. Cited regarding noise for footnote 9 affirming that a municipality does not have a burden to “present evidence to show that the exclusionary regulation bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morality, or welfare” during a putative substantive validity challenge when the use has “particularly objectionable quality.” [Slip 13 fn 9]. FN9 cites Beaver Gasoline Co. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Borough of Osborne, 285 A.2d 501, 504-05 (Pa. 1971) for “[c]ommon knowledge indicates that certain types of business activities, by reason of the particularly objectionable quality of those activities, are undesirable land uses and total prohibition would appear prima facieto be designed to protect those public interests which zoning statutes permit municipalities to protect. . . . [These include] activit[ies] generally known to give off noxious odors, disturb the tranquility of a large area by making loud noises, have the obvious potential of poisoning the air or the water of the area, or similarly have clearly deleterious effects upon the general public[.]” [Slip 13 fn9, ellipses and edits in original).
NOTE: Court also cites Township of Exeter v. Zoning Hearing Board of Exeter Township, 962 A.2d 653 (Pa. 2009) for the rule for substantive validity challenges to the zoning ordinance which in turn heavily cite In re Realen Valley Forge Greenes Associates, 838 A.2d 718, 727 (Pa. 2003)(claiming zoning ordinances may limit uses).