2wall sign; and, in failing to find the doctrine of laches barred the Township fromissuing an enforcement notice and determination. Adsmart also contends it is
entitled to costs and fees as a result of the Township’s improper enforcement
action and determination. For the following reasons, we affirm.
II. BackgroundA. Enforcement Notice and Determination; Appeals
In its decision denying Adsmart’s appeals, the ZHB provided the
following background. The subject property is located at 762-766 Old RailroadAvenue in Bryn Mawr. It is improved with a one-story commercial buildingattached to a three-story residential/commercial building in an area zoned C-2Commercial. Adsmart leases a portion of the second floor exterior surface of thetaller building for an attached
10’ by 30’
off-premises advertising wall sign. Thesign faced the intersection of Bryn Mawr Avenue and Haverford Road.In 2009, a Township resident and an active billboard opponent, CarlaZambelli (Ms. Zambelli), inquired as to the legality of the wall sign on the subjectproperty. Thereafter,
the Township’s Director of Building and Planning, Robert E.
Duncan (Planning Director) investigated the legality of the sign. In June 2009,Planning Director inspected the subject property and issued an enforcement noticeto the
property’s owner. The notice explained the Township’s C
-2 CommercialDistrict did not permit off-premises advertising signs.In July 2009, Adsmart, not the property owner, appealed theenforcement notice to the ZHB. Adsmart asserted an advertising wall sign had