A defiant Lamar Advertising refused to remove a Sprint banner from the former Bayer sign atop Mount Washington by the Monday afternoon deadline imposed by the city, setting the stage for a possible court showdown.
The vinyl banner was still in place after the 5 p.m. cutoff ordered by city solicitor Lourdes Sanchez-Ridge in a letter sent to Lamar’s attorney, Jonathan Kamin, last week.
Ms. Sanchez-Ridge delivered the ultimatum after the city’s Zoning Board of Adjustment ruled Feb. 16 that the yellow banner with black lettering proclaiming, “Pittsburgh WINS with Black & Yellow” violated the law.
Reached after the deadline had passed, Mr. Kamin said Lamar would be appealing the zoning board’s decision to Allegheny County Common Pleas Court.
“We have reviewed the decision and believe that it is wrong. We intend to file an appeal expeditiously,” he said. “We remain open to having discussions with the city if they think that would be helpful.”
The city also may be headed to court in an attempt to force the banner’s removal. Kevin Acklin, chief of staff to Mayor Bill Peduto, said the city is prepared to file a motion Tuesday in Common Pleas Court to compel compliance with the zoning board decision if necessary.
“We have an obligation to uphold the law, and we remain open to further good faith conversations with Lamar regarding the long-term status of the Mount Washington sign,” he said.
The latest battle over the Sprint advertisement erupted after the zoning board denied a protest appeal filed by Lamar when the law department ordered the removal of the banner in June.
Board members, appointed by Mr. Peduto, ruled that the installation of the 7,200-square-foot vinyl static advertising sign as a replacement for a nonconforming 4,500-square-foot electronic sign violated a section of the city zoning code, which states that nonconforming signs “may not be enlarged, added to or replaced by another nonconforming sign or by a nonconforming use or structure.”
Mr. Peduto has described the banner, attached to one of the city’s most visible and historic advertising spaces, as an “eyesore” and an “illegal piece of vinyl on our hillsides.”
Last week, Mr. Acklin said he was hopeful that Lamar would comply with the zoning board’s decision and remove the sign. However, he stressed that the city “would have no choice but to take further action to enforce the zoning ruling” should Lamar refuse.
In rejecting Lamar’s protest appeal, the board also ruled that the company, through its “unpermitted action of installing the vinyl sign,” had voluntarily abandoned the legal nonconforming right it had to use the former Bayer infrastructure for electronic advertising.
Mr. Kamin has disputed that contention.
Mark Belko: mbelko@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1262.
First Published: February 27, 2017, 10:35 p.m.