August 1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

mart turned to the Lommonwealth ourt's decision in First Presbyteri- rr. Church of York v. City Council the Cite of York, 25 Pa. Cmwlth. :. -4, ,360 A.2d 257 (1976) in analyz- ,ng Park Home's taking claim. The -'()urt first restated the test set forth :n �'ouk for determining whether a .aktng has occurred. Under this ,cst, the court determined the key Issue is "whether the refusal of the ,)crmit to demolish went so far as to preclude the use of the Park Home for any purpose for which it was reasonably adapted." The court then identified several factors con- sidered in York for evaluating a takings claim. These factors in- clude: (1) whether the sale of the property in question is impractica- ble; (2) whether com- mercial rental could provide a reasonable return; and (3) whether other potential uses of the building were fore- closed. In applying these factors to the case at hand, the court determined that Park Home had not met its burden of proof. The court found that Park Horne had not explored the option of selling the building. In addition, the court cited testimony by Park Home's Board of Directors that the organization was in "good financial circumstances." While the court observed that Park Home had em- phasized "the poor structural condi- tion of the building," it also noted that all of the engineers and archi- tects who toured the building had found that it was "basically struc- turally sound." The court also 1 found it significant that Park Home had not indicated that it could not continue its operation in the pres- ent facility, despite the fact that experts had found that reinforce- ment beams and flooring were re- quired to correct a sloping second floor. In describing the Board's testi- mony, the court stated: The Board's decision to demolish is based on a "best use" theory. Quite simply the Board believes that demo- lition of the building is the most economical, profitable choice for the Park Home. It is apparent that little consideration was given to the Park Home's historical value when the Board reviewed the options available to it. Mr. Hoff admitted on cross- examination that it was possible the Park Home could carry out its mandated purpose (a home for aged people) in another location and market the Park Home building, but this idea was not explored by the Board. The court found it significant that Park Home had not indicat- ed that it could not continue its operation in the present facility. 1 The court sum- marily rejected several alternative arguments that had been raised by the Board in seeking to overturn the City's decision to deny the permit. The court determined that the Pennsylvania statute and Wil- liamsport ordinance were not void for vagueness, finding that "the statute and ordinance contain rea- sonable standards to guide prospec- tive conduct." The court also con- cluded that the laws did not violate a prohibition against retroactive laws, observing that the historic preservation laws did not prevent Park Home from operating a home for the aged, as mandated by its corporate charter. The court also readily dis- missed the Board's claim that the • X_ City Council's action in denying the demolition permit was void for failure of the HARB to comply with specific procedural requirements. Under the Williamsport ordinance, if the Board decides to recommend against granting a certificate of appropriateness, it must identify suggested changes that would he consistent with the historical char- acter of the district. If the owner agrees to those changes, than the Board must submit its advice in writing to the Council. In the pres- ent case, the HARB had merely attached the minutes of its meeting with the Board to its recommendation to the City Council. The court rejected the organization's pro- cedural claim finding that there had been .,no harm or prejudice to the applicant." The court based its decision on the fact that Park Home had filed a Local Agency Law Appeal challenging the City Council's denial of the permit and did not ob- ject to the procedures employed by the HARB in making its recommendation to the City Council. Lastly, the court found that the City Council's action in denying the demolition permit was not "arbitrary and capricious" although the City had permitted the demoli- tion of other buildings within the district. In rejecting Park Home's argument on this issue, the court stated: Park Home's JR11 for a demolition permit are individual to the Park Home itself. The record does not indicate the city acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner in denying this request. Analysis. The court's ruling in this case, upholding the denial of an application for a demolition permit by the City of Williamsport, illustrates the significant burden of proof that property owners must meet in seeking to overturn a deci- sion pursuant to a well -drafted historic preservation ordinance. Under Pennsylvania law, a property owner seeking to char- acterize such a deci- sion as a taking must establish that the building may not be used for any purpose for which it was rea- sonably adapted. Tes- timony that demoli- tion and new construc- tion is preferable to renovation is not suffi- cient to support a tak- ing claim where the evidence establishes that the building is structurally sound, rehabilitation is a feasible and economically viable alternative, and no effort has been made to sell the building. It should also be noted that United Artists Theater Circuit, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia, at issue in this case, has been reconsidered by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and a new decision issued. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled unanimously on November 9, 1993, that the designation of a building as historic without the consent of the property owner is not a "taking" requiring just compensation. See The decision illustrates the significant bur- den of proof that property owners must meet in seeking to over- turn a decision pursuant to a well -drafted his- toric preserva- tion ordinance. Obviously each circumstance is dif- ferent and cannot be used as a stan- dard. The reasons for denying the