dissenting.
■ I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the 25-square-foot limitation on sign size in § 105.2 amounts to a defacto exclusion of billboards. The majority agrees with the Commonwealth Court’s finding “industry size standards are not automatically controlling in determining what size sign restriction can be deemed de facto exclusionary,” Majority at 584, 962 A.2d at 662, and further notes, “[t]he record does not support the notion that a restriction on' the size of signs must meet industry standards to pass constitutional muster.” Id. However, it appears industry size standards have nevertheless dictated the present outcome.
Land Displays’ experts testified it is impossible to market billboard advertising on the route in question unless the sign is at least 300 square feet; the Board found this evidence established the operation of a billboard of lesser square footage is impossible and, in effect, a de facto exclusion of billboards. Like the Commonwealth Court, I would find the Board’s determination unsupported by substantial evidence; thus, Land Displays did not overcome its burden to show § 105.2 is unconstitutional. The testimony of two industry experts, citing alleged national standards of an industry where profits and sign square footage are directly proportional, falls short of overcoming the presumption in favor of § 105.2’s constitutionality.
The Commonwealth Court has held a “zoning authority can establish rigorous objective standards in its ordinance for size.... ” Adams Outdoor Advertising, LP v. Zoning Hearing *587Board of Smithfield Township, 909 A.2d 469, 477-78 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006); Atlantic Refining & Marketing Corp. v. Board of Commissioners of York Township, 147 Pa.Cmwlth. 418, 608 A.2d 592, 594 (1992) (upholding validity of ordinance with 32-square-foot size sign limit). Advertising signs are a permitted use under § 105.2, and billboards fall under this classification. The sign size limit, as the photographs of conforming 25-square-foot advertising signs in the Township evidence, precludes only those signs larger than 25 square feet and does not amount to a total ban of billboards, defeating Land Displays’ claim. As it was within the Township’s authority to limit the size of advertising signs, it was under no duty to do so pursuant to national advertising industry standards. As I find the Board’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence, I would hold Land Displays did not meet its burden to prove § 105.2 unconstitutional.