East Deer, Oliver Outdoor state their case in billboard court battle

The fate of electronic billboards in East Deer is in the hands of an Allegheny County judge.

The township and America First Enterprises, which does business as Oliver Outdoor, stated their cases in court filings regarding the status of three billboards that had been approved by the East Deer Zoning Hearing Board.

Following a June public hearing, the zoning hearing board in August ruled the township’s zoning ordinance is exclusionary regarding billboards. It had recommended approval of three of four billboards. Board members wrote in their findings that they needed more information before ruling on the fourth sign.

East Deer appealed that decision in Allegheny County Court, and the township and Oliver were instructed by Judge Mary C. McGinley to file briefs in the case in February.

The township’s solicitor, Craig Alexander, wrote in his filings that McGinley should remand the case back to the zoning hearing board for further proceedings.

Alexander’s filing said the zoning board had no legal representation to guide them either during the hearing or in the decision-making process and that there were “irregularities” in the process. He also points to an issue of whether a limited access highway — Route 28 — and off ramp near one of the proposed billboards has any bearing on the outcome.

East Deer asked the judge to give the township the same opportunity Judge Joseph James gave Tarentum Borough in 2019, in a case that also involved Oliver and where James ordered the proceedings be sent back to the borough’s zoning hearing board after an initial appeal by Oliver.

Oliver claims East Deer had its chance to make its points at a June public hearing and that allowing the remand would be “a second bite at the apple.” Its attorney, Maureen Sweeney, wrote in her filing that the township misinterpreted James’ decision in the Tarentum case.

She wrote that James didn’t send the case back to the zoning board so the borough could provide additional evidence, but instead send it back it “to consider whether the ordinance was de facto exclusionary in the first place.”

Oliver requested McGinley dismiss East Deer’s appeal and direct the township to issue its sign permits.

“The (zoning hearing board’s) written decision duly contains the requisite findings of fact and conclusion of law based on the evidence presented at the hearing before it,” Oliver’s filing said. “If the record were somehow to be considered ‘incomplete’ regarding the township’s position, that is solely due to the township’s own failures or deficiencies — not the (zoning hearing board’s).”

McGinley gave no indication as to when she might hand down her decision.