Solicitors Happy With Partially Affirmed Rulings on Billboards Case

BROOMALL– may see a bright light at the end of the tunnel of a long, exhaustive challenge made by the Bartkowski Investment Group, Inc. (BIG) in 2009 to erect a total of seven billboards along West Chester Pike and Sproul Road in Marple.

In a summary judgment issued April 15, Judge Kevin Brobson partially affirmed that the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania ruled in favor with the Marple Board of Commissioners on the procedural challenge made by BIG. However, the court has reversed the ruling in favor with the township and remanded further proceedings on BIG's complaint.

Adam Matlawski, Marple Township solicitor, said he was "pretty happy" with the judge's decision over a phone interview with Patch on Tuesday afternoon.

Matlawski said that he believes Marple Township will win that ruling.

"We view the decision as a very positive decision," said Matlawski. "The first part of it is a 100 percent victory  for the township and the second part of it is getting to it."

In his second part of the ruling, Brobson noted that BIG’s declaratory and mandamus relief complaint—concerning the to prevent BIG from placing seven billboards along West Chester Pike and Sproul Road—would be going back to the trial court. 

BIG's complaint argues that Marple's amended sign ordinance–amended on Jan. 5, 2009–was not filed in a timely matter and thus was not applicable to denying BIG's proposed billboards.

But according to Jim Byrne, a solicitor representing Marple and various other townships in the area in the billboards case with BIG, the second part of the court's ruling is simply a procedural issue of whether or not the township placed the ordinance in the first class township's general code book, which does not apply to the validity of whether the ordinance itself was incorrect.

"It's very encouraging actually," commented Byrne in a phone interview Tuesday. "The fact is that the court directs the township to put an ordinance in a book, and that doesn't invalidate the law. It's a directory rather than mandatory procedure within that action–there's no penalty on that."

Matlawski also looked positively towards the second part of the judge's decision.

"We think the language from the court is good for the township," shared Matlawski. "The Commonwealth Court went out of its way to say it was directory and not mandatory [placing the ordinance in the official code book] and did not void the validity of the ordinance in this book."

According to Byrne, another hearing is in store for the township and BIG on second part of the judge's ruling from April 15. Byrne, confident and positive, said he's encouraged by the court's decision.

"We think the court will see it through that this isn't an issue," said Byrne.

BIG has filed billboard applications in several neighboring towns of Marple including Newtown, Havertown, Springfield and Bryn Mawr.

Byrne, also the Haverford Township solicitor, said that he does not feel that the rulings will have an impact on Haverford Township’s role in the billboard issue.

“I don’t think this decision has any effect on Haverford, but I’m pleased with the ruling,” he said.