Contact us at brynfordca@gmail.com
Billboards in Brynford
Status update
January 2022. The billboard case is currently in arbitration. An update will be provided when additional information is available.
January 2022. The billboard case is currently in arbitration. An update will be provided when additional information is available.
A Not-So-Brief History of the Billboards Fight
February 2009. Bartkowski Investment Group (BIG) files applications to Haverford Township Zoning Hearing Board to construct six billboards in Haverford Township (number eventually reduced to four). The application challenges the validity of Haverford Township’s zoning ordinance forbidding billboards in the township.
May 7, 2009 to February 2, 2011. Zoning Board conducts 27 hearings on the issue.
February 16, 2012. Zoning Board issues oral decision denying BIG’s application for an exception to the ordinance.
March 1, 2012. Zoning Board issues written decision with 226 findings of fact and 29 conclusions of law.
May 2013. BIG files appeal to the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas challenging the Zoning Board decision.
December 2013. Court of Common Please upholds only part of the Zoning Board decision about the safety of the proposed billboards but does not uphold the municipality-wide exclusion of billboards.
January 6, 2014. BIG files notice of appeal of Common Pleas decision about the safety of billboards to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.
December 8, 2014. Commonwealth Court affirms the lower court decision on the unconstitutionality of the Zoning Board billboard exclusion and remands the issue back to the Court of Common Pleas.
June 9, 2015. Township implements ordinance to change zoning regulations, to not exclude all billboards but require regulation of billboards.
December 2018. BIG submits new plans for slightly smaller billboards on Lancaster Avenue.
January-December 2019. The case, which had been remanded to the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas but was on hold pending the zoning code revision, is prepared by BIG and Haverford and Lower Merion townships.
January 21-23, 2020. Billboards case scheduled to be heard by Judge Angelos of the Court of Common Pleas, in Media.
February 2009. Bartkowski Investment Group (BIG) files applications to Haverford Township Zoning Hearing Board to construct six billboards in Haverford Township (number eventually reduced to four). The application challenges the validity of Haverford Township’s zoning ordinance forbidding billboards in the township.
May 7, 2009 to February 2, 2011. Zoning Board conducts 27 hearings on the issue.
February 16, 2012. Zoning Board issues oral decision denying BIG’s application for an exception to the ordinance.
March 1, 2012. Zoning Board issues written decision with 226 findings of fact and 29 conclusions of law.
May 2013. BIG files appeal to the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas challenging the Zoning Board decision.
December 2013. Court of Common Please upholds only part of the Zoning Board decision about the safety of the proposed billboards but does not uphold the municipality-wide exclusion of billboards.
January 6, 2014. BIG files notice of appeal of Common Pleas decision about the safety of billboards to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.
December 8, 2014. Commonwealth Court affirms the lower court decision on the unconstitutionality of the Zoning Board billboard exclusion and remands the issue back to the Court of Common Pleas.
June 9, 2015. Township implements ordinance to change zoning regulations, to not exclude all billboards but require regulation of billboards.
December 2018. BIG submits new plans for slightly smaller billboards on Lancaster Avenue.
January-December 2019. The case, which had been remanded to the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas but was on hold pending the zoning code revision, is prepared by BIG and Haverford and Lower Merion townships.
January 21-23, 2020. Billboards case scheduled to be heard by Judge Angelos of the Court of Common Pleas, in Media.
View of proposed billboard from Lancaster Avenue at corner of Lancaster and Penn.
View of proposed billboard on Lancaster Avenue at the intersection of Old Lancaster Avenue.
Court Day 2. A Matter of Apples and Oranges
(January 23, 2020)
We arrived at court very early today, but for the first time in 2 days the entire BIG staff did not attend so we got seats. Mr. BIG (Thaddeus Bartkowski) was not in court. Of the four BIG experts slated to testify, one was unavailable and one was not allowed to continue testifying for reasons not explained to observers.
The two BIG experts left were Dr. Ronald Gibbons, associate professor of architecture at Virginia Tech and an expert in lighting and visibility in the roadway environment, and Casey Moore, a civil engineer and expert in traffic engineering from McMahon Associates. Gibbons was a BIG witness in previous cases; one of his areas of expertise is lighting, but he did not discuss that.
Gibbons had specified BIG’s original billboard sizes for Lancaster and West Chester Pikes and noted that the size he recommended was the minimum acceptable for safety among the five standard industry sizes. (Advertisers print signs in standard sizes for use everywhere; deviation from standard sizes requires custom printing.) Under questioning, he noted that the larger the billboard, the safer from a viewing-time perspective. In 2018 he reduced the sizes of the recommended advertising face and sign heights after a request from BIG to: 1) not default to the next larger industry standard size and 2) take the catwalks and aprons off to lower the height. He testified that the smaller sizes and heights he now recommended were absolutely safe. This statement was challenged by township attorneys as inconsistent with his earlier statement that bigger is better.
Moore explained his crash studies, which BIG commissioned. These involved numbers of reported accidents before and after billboards were installed at four sites he selected and speed studies (mph for 85% of drivers) at Haverford sites. Moore was questioned in depth about his own studies and those he did not conduct but cited in his research.
We heard a comparison of the apples of different study cohorts (ages, number of participants, driving expertise, observers in car or not) to the oranges of different times of the day and year (in July everyone really is “down the shore” or elsewhere), roads not equivalent to ours except in general PennDot classification, and more inconsistencies. Township-team attorneys William Malone and Michael Crotty asked questions about study design worthy of scientific journal peer reviewers.
As expected, the case was continued, to February 20, 24, 25, when we will hear from the townships. Remember that all the evidence from previous cases is also part of the record. And the record is huge and growing. Stay tuned.
Kathy Case
BCA Civic Association
Steering Committee
SPECIAL THANKS TO OUR BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR THEIR DEDICATION TO PROTECTING US FROM THE BARTOWSKI BLIGHT. THEY ARE VOLUNTEERS ACTING IN UNANIMOUS BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD. WHAT AN EXAMPLE IN THESE TIMES!
(January 23, 2020)
We arrived at court very early today, but for the first time in 2 days the entire BIG staff did not attend so we got seats. Mr. BIG (Thaddeus Bartkowski) was not in court. Of the four BIG experts slated to testify, one was unavailable and one was not allowed to continue testifying for reasons not explained to observers.
The two BIG experts left were Dr. Ronald Gibbons, associate professor of architecture at Virginia Tech and an expert in lighting and visibility in the roadway environment, and Casey Moore, a civil engineer and expert in traffic engineering from McMahon Associates. Gibbons was a BIG witness in previous cases; one of his areas of expertise is lighting, but he did not discuss that.
Gibbons had specified BIG’s original billboard sizes for Lancaster and West Chester Pikes and noted that the size he recommended was the minimum acceptable for safety among the five standard industry sizes. (Advertisers print signs in standard sizes for use everywhere; deviation from standard sizes requires custom printing.) Under questioning, he noted that the larger the billboard, the safer from a viewing-time perspective. In 2018 he reduced the sizes of the recommended advertising face and sign heights after a request from BIG to: 1) not default to the next larger industry standard size and 2) take the catwalks and aprons off to lower the height. He testified that the smaller sizes and heights he now recommended were absolutely safe. This statement was challenged by township attorneys as inconsistent with his earlier statement that bigger is better.
Moore explained his crash studies, which BIG commissioned. These involved numbers of reported accidents before and after billboards were installed at four sites he selected and speed studies (mph for 85% of drivers) at Haverford sites. Moore was questioned in depth about his own studies and those he did not conduct but cited in his research.
We heard a comparison of the apples of different study cohorts (ages, number of participants, driving expertise, observers in car or not) to the oranges of different times of the day and year (in July everyone really is “down the shore” or elsewhere), roads not equivalent to ours except in general PennDot classification, and more inconsistencies. Township-team attorneys William Malone and Michael Crotty asked questions about study design worthy of scientific journal peer reviewers.
As expected, the case was continued, to February 20, 24, 25, when we will hear from the townships. Remember that all the evidence from previous cases is also part of the record. And the record is huge and growing. Stay tuned.
Kathy Case
BCA Civic Association
Steering Committee
SPECIAL THANKS TO OUR BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR THEIR DEDICATION TO PROTECTING US FROM THE BARTOWSKI BLIGHT. THEY ARE VOLUNTEERS ACTING IN UNANIMOUS BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD. WHAT AN EXAMPLE IN THESE TIMES!
Court Day 1. No Surprises
(January 22, 2020)
The endless billboard case had no surprises on Wednesday. As one long-time observer noted, “I have heard all of this before.” Forewarned that the 33-person Bartowski staff would arrive early at court and take most of the 50 seats, as they had on Tuesday, Haverford residents also arrived early. We were in line in the hallway, waiting for the courtroom to open, when two BIG staff members butted in front of me. When I mentioned that the line was behind me, I was ignored. Not a great beginning. (NOTE: You can get into the courthouse at 8, but not into the courtroom until 8:30.)
At least 10 attorneys and about 51 observers (mostly BIG folk) crowded the courtroom. It was a long day. I counted 10 sidebars (conferences with the judge when an attorney objects to something). Haverford Township solicitor Jim Byrne won some and lost some objections—one win spared us from hearing Thaddeus Bartkowski’s biography (starting at age 17!). Another spared us from a dissertation about the outdoor advertising industry.
After presenting mind-numbing mathematical calculations of how big a billboard needs to be to best achieve BIG’s purpose: “to convey a commercial message” (aka advertising), Bartkowski announced that his team was now recommending smaller billboards and slightly lower heights for Haverford Township. The reductions were achieved by removal of aprons carrying the company’s name and hanging catwalks for maintenance; catwalks can now be on the back of the signs. In most cases these reductions were the equivalent of a 9 X 7 sheet of plywood or less.
In presenting maps of the commercial corridors BIG was targeting, Bartkowski never mentioned the residential neighborhoods that bordered the areas, and ignored the churches. On cross examination late in the day, Jim Byrne showed the same maps and pointed out the residential areas—the many houses on Dayton, Old Lancaster, and San Marino, and he discussed the Polo Field. He asked, “Did you ever talk to any of these residents about billboards in their back yard?” Objected to and objection sustained, unfortunately.
A clever BIG video de-emphasized the size of the smaller signs, although presented as being to scale. (Anyone who has ever made a video knows how to manipulate perception--angles make a difference.) Jim Byrne won one when the judge allowed him, over BIG’s objection, to stretch a measuring tape for the smallest of the signs—it stretched 48 feet and filled the courtroom.
My colleague on the BCA Steering Committee and I kept track of jargon used to describe aspects of BIG’s “built environment.” We particularly liked “negative space” and the notion that proposals were based on a lack of “billboard inventory” (meaning there were blessedly few billboard blights in the neighborhood). An inventory of blights…interesting notion.
Tomorrow, expert witnesses for BIG will testify. Whether Haverford will begin its case tomorrow is uncertain. There will be no hearing on Friday. What is certain is that this case will be continued to February. Stay tuned.
- Kathy Case, BCA Steering Committee
(January 22, 2020)
The endless billboard case had no surprises on Wednesday. As one long-time observer noted, “I have heard all of this before.” Forewarned that the 33-person Bartowski staff would arrive early at court and take most of the 50 seats, as they had on Tuesday, Haverford residents also arrived early. We were in line in the hallway, waiting for the courtroom to open, when two BIG staff members butted in front of me. When I mentioned that the line was behind me, I was ignored. Not a great beginning. (NOTE: You can get into the courthouse at 8, but not into the courtroom until 8:30.)
At least 10 attorneys and about 51 observers (mostly BIG folk) crowded the courtroom. It was a long day. I counted 10 sidebars (conferences with the judge when an attorney objects to something). Haverford Township solicitor Jim Byrne won some and lost some objections—one win spared us from hearing Thaddeus Bartkowski’s biography (starting at age 17!). Another spared us from a dissertation about the outdoor advertising industry.
After presenting mind-numbing mathematical calculations of how big a billboard needs to be to best achieve BIG’s purpose: “to convey a commercial message” (aka advertising), Bartkowski announced that his team was now recommending smaller billboards and slightly lower heights for Haverford Township. The reductions were achieved by removal of aprons carrying the company’s name and hanging catwalks for maintenance; catwalks can now be on the back of the signs. In most cases these reductions were the equivalent of a 9 X 7 sheet of plywood or less.
In presenting maps of the commercial corridors BIG was targeting, Bartkowski never mentioned the residential neighborhoods that bordered the areas, and ignored the churches. On cross examination late in the day, Jim Byrne showed the same maps and pointed out the residential areas—the many houses on Dayton, Old Lancaster, and San Marino, and he discussed the Polo Field. He asked, “Did you ever talk to any of these residents about billboards in their back yard?” Objected to and objection sustained, unfortunately.
A clever BIG video de-emphasized the size of the smaller signs, although presented as being to scale. (Anyone who has ever made a video knows how to manipulate perception--angles make a difference.) Jim Byrne won one when the judge allowed him, over BIG’s objection, to stretch a measuring tape for the smallest of the signs—it stretched 48 feet and filled the courtroom.
My colleague on the BCA Steering Committee and I kept track of jargon used to describe aspects of BIG’s “built environment.” We particularly liked “negative space” and the notion that proposals were based on a lack of “billboard inventory” (meaning there were blessedly few billboard blights in the neighborhood). An inventory of blights…interesting notion.
Tomorrow, expert witnesses for BIG will testify. Whether Haverford will begin its case tomorrow is uncertain. There will be no hearing on Friday. What is certain is that this case will be continued to February. Stay tuned.
- Kathy Case, BCA Steering Committee
A Cold Day. A Community United Against Billboard Blight
Braving the freezing cold but warmed by shared community outrage, nearly 90 neighbors stopped by Lancaster Avenue January 20 to protest billboards. Sponsored by the Brynford Civic Association, the hour-long demonstration was the latest event in a 10-year battle with Bartkowski Investment Group (BIG), which is suing Haverford Township’s Zoning Board to force acceptance of billboards in the township. The BIG group is also suing other townships in Chester, Montgomery, and Delaware counties.
Protesters carried signs with slogans such as Bartkowski Blight, Unsafe, Not in our Backyard, and Honk if You Hate Billboards. They cheered thumbs-up signals of motorists over the sounds of honking. The Haverford Civic Association brought large balloons with the slogan, “No BIG.” They struggled to float in the high wind, a reminder what wind might do to billboards on buildings.
Braving the freezing cold but warmed by shared community outrage, nearly 90 neighbors stopped by Lancaster Avenue January 20 to protest billboards. Sponsored by the Brynford Civic Association, the hour-long demonstration was the latest event in a 10-year battle with Bartkowski Investment Group (BIG), which is suing Haverford Township’s Zoning Board to force acceptance of billboards in the township. The BIG group is also suing other townships in Chester, Montgomery, and Delaware counties.
Protesters carried signs with slogans such as Bartkowski Blight, Unsafe, Not in our Backyard, and Honk if You Hate Billboards. They cheered thumbs-up signals of motorists over the sounds of honking. The Haverford Civic Association brought large balloons with the slogan, “No BIG.” They struggled to float in the high wind, a reminder what wind might do to billboards on buildings.
“I am part of the third generation of my family to live in our home on Old Lancaster Road,” noted Michelle Geer. “We have major concerns about the safety of these billboards, and they would shine lights right into our home.”
Supporting the protesters were small business owners like Nick Odorosio of Nick’s Gym on Lancaster; Gary King, long-time owner of King’s Auto Service, which offered a gathering place for the protest; and John Fish, owner of Fish’s Clock Repair, the oldest business in Bryn Mawr.
“My grandfather used to walk from the shop down to the Buck Inn 130 years ago, right along this road. He would be rolling in his grave now; he would have had a fit.” Fish said.
Supporting the protesters were small business owners like Nick Odorosio of Nick’s Gym on Lancaster; Gary King, long-time owner of King’s Auto Service, which offered a gathering place for the protest; and John Fish, owner of Fish’s Clock Repair, the oldest business in Bryn Mawr.
“My grandfather used to walk from the shop down to the Buck Inn 130 years ago, right along this road. He would be rolling in his grave now; he would have had a fit.” Fish said.
Haverford Township Commissioner Andy Lewis urged everyone to attend the court hearings in Media starting tomorrow so that the judge could “see the resolve of our community.” Lewis said, “This community is not for sale, like other townships.”
Lower Merion Commissioner Scott Zelov asked people to sign the online petition, which encompasses Lower Merion, Radnor, Haverford, and Marple townships, all of which are fighting BIG billboards. “That company is relentless because there is so much money at stake,” Zelov noted.
“The decision of Judge Angelos this week could affect everyone in Pennsylvania,” said Doreen Saar of the Brynford Civic Association. “It could set a precedent and make everyone along a major corridor at risk. Instead of bolstering small businesses, it could destroy them.”
Hearings begin tomorrow, January 21, at 9 am, in Delaware County Court of Common Pleas in Media. This reporter will be attempting to post brief summaries of the hearings on this website. On a personal note, it was great to see so many brave the cold in service to our community on Martin Luther King Day. Dr. King often talked about community and said in another context, “It is always the right time to do the right thing.”
- Kathy Case, Brynford Civic Association
Lower Merion Commissioner Scott Zelov asked people to sign the online petition, which encompasses Lower Merion, Radnor, Haverford, and Marple townships, all of which are fighting BIG billboards. “That company is relentless because there is so much money at stake,” Zelov noted.
“The decision of Judge Angelos this week could affect everyone in Pennsylvania,” said Doreen Saar of the Brynford Civic Association. “It could set a precedent and make everyone along a major corridor at risk. Instead of bolstering small businesses, it could destroy them.”
Hearings begin tomorrow, January 21, at 9 am, in Delaware County Court of Common Pleas in Media. This reporter will be attempting to post brief summaries of the hearings on this website. On a personal note, it was great to see so many brave the cold in service to our community on Martin Luther King Day. Dr. King often talked about community and said in another context, “It is always the right time to do the right thing.”
- Kathy Case, Brynford Civic Association
Bryn Mawr Neighbors Vow: No Billboards
Even in the spacious Haverford School auditorium, slide images of two billboards on Lancaster Avenue towered over the audience. Sounds of disbelief and dismay rippled through the crowd of nearly 200.
The Bryn Mawr community met on January 9 to discuss preventing these large structures from invading Haverford Township (two are proposed on West Chester Pike as well). Haverford Township Commissioners Andy Lewis and Kevin McCloskey, Haverford Township Solicitor Jim Byrne, and Lower Merion Commissioner Scott Zelov presided over the meeting, which was covered by Philadelphia and local news outlets.
Even in the spacious Haverford School auditorium, slide images of two billboards on Lancaster Avenue towered over the audience. Sounds of disbelief and dismay rippled through the crowd of nearly 200.
The Bryn Mawr community met on January 9 to discuss preventing these large structures from invading Haverford Township (two are proposed on West Chester Pike as well). Haverford Township Commissioners Andy Lewis and Kevin McCloskey, Haverford Township Solicitor Jim Byrne, and Lower Merion Commissioner Scott Zelov presided over the meeting, which was covered by Philadelphia and local news outlets.
Township officials lead the billboards meeting (from left: Solicitor Jim Byrne, Commissioner Andy Lewis, Commissioner Scott Zelov, Commissioner Kevin McCloskey)
The townships have been engaged in legal battles for over 10 years (see history). The opposition is Catalyst Experiential (formerly Catalyst Outdoor Advertising and other entities owned by the Bartkowski Investment Group--BIG). Billboards have usually been placed along major highways, but Catalyst is now targeting residential communities using the slogan “the convergence of community and communication.” They erect what they call monuments, with digital signs.
The company tries to influence communities into accepting billboard monuments by funding a community service, or posting free community ads, while Catalyst sells commercial advertising on the billboard. The large digital monument on the Expressway, labeled West Conshohocken, is a recent example.
“Experiential” is an appropriate name. People who live on San Marino, Dayton, Old Lancaster, Penn, County Line, and other roads would experience the billboards dominating the sky all day and the lights shining in their windows at night. Businesses along Lancaster would experience their shop signs and storefronts dwarfed by the billboards. Children visiting the CHOP clinic and worshipers at Our Mother of Good Counsel or St. Luke’s Methodist Church would experience whatever messages advertisers wanted. Motorists and pedestrians would experience distractions at busy Route 30 intersections, causing more accidents; severe storms would further threaten safety as billboards can collapse. Real estate values in the area would fall because who wants to experience living under or near a billboard?
The company tries to influence communities into accepting billboard monuments by funding a community service, or posting free community ads, while Catalyst sells commercial advertising on the billboard. The large digital monument on the Expressway, labeled West Conshohocken, is a recent example.
“Experiential” is an appropriate name. People who live on San Marino, Dayton, Old Lancaster, Penn, County Line, and other roads would experience the billboards dominating the sky all day and the lights shining in their windows at night. Businesses along Lancaster would experience their shop signs and storefronts dwarfed by the billboards. Children visiting the CHOP clinic and worshipers at Our Mother of Good Counsel or St. Luke’s Methodist Church would experience whatever messages advertisers wanted. Motorists and pedestrians would experience distractions at busy Route 30 intersections, causing more accidents; severe storms would further threaten safety as billboards can collapse. Real estate values in the area would fall because who wants to experience living under or near a billboard?
All of these concerns and more were expressed at the community meeting. No one spoke in favor of billboards. The principal owner of Catalyst, Thaddeus Bartkowski, did not attend to hear community members call his proposal “Bartkowski’s Blight.”
The Brynford Civic Association strongly supports the commissioners in their efforts to fight this blight as vigorously as possible. Find out what you can do to “Get Informed, Get Involved.”
-Kathy Case, BCA Steering Committee
The Brynford Civic Association strongly supports the commissioners in their efforts to fight this blight as vigorously as possible. Find out what you can do to “Get Informed, Get Involved.”
-Kathy Case, BCA Steering Committee