August 1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

J "Pennsylvania Supreme Court Re- MINIMUM M A I N T E N A N C 1 verses Itself in United Artists; Rules Philadelphia Preservation Ordinance is Constitutional," 12 Maine Court Rules Enforcement of PLR 1165 (1993). Thus, the Court to Repair Historic Property Would F of Common Pleas's ruling that the original decision of the Pennsylva- in Unlawful "Taking" nia Supremc Court does not apply to historic districts is no longer at issue. The regulation of both his- The District Court of Minimum mai toric districts and individual build Maine has ruled that enforce- provisions to protec ings in the Commonwealth of ment of an order by the City structures are an essc Pennsylvania is unquestionably of Portland directing a proper- of historic preserva constitutional. ty owner to repair a deterio- grams. Without a i rated historic building, pursu- maintenance requir ant to a minimum mainte- property owner cou nance provision in the Port- fect, destroy, his or i land historic preservation ing simply through ordinance, would result in an maintenance. Whil, unconstitutional taking. Rely- instances, such as ing on the owner's assertion reported below, enj that it would not be able to of a minimum ma_ • sell or rent the building even requirem en t m ay n o after expending more than ble if a genuine $100,000 for its repair, the hardship may be es: court determined that compli- in general such prov ance with the order would regarded as fully cor- deny the owner all reasonable al. City of Portland beneficial use of its property Causer Associates, in this case. The court, how- 91-LU-006 (Me. Dist ever, affirmed the constitu- 20, 1993).) tionality of the minimum maintenance requirement on his case involves its face. Furthermore, the iled by the Citycourt To found that a separate compel comp order directing the owner to an order issued pursuan secure the vacant building mum maintenance prov against entry and remove all Portland historic preser- vegetation around the build- nance. The ordinance c ing would not result in a un- owner of the Tracy-Ca lawful taking and thus direct- ing, .Tracy-Causer Ass make certain repairs t( ed the owner to comply with building. Tracy-Causer its terms. refused to comply wits r.,.,. Rn nnrrvr necember19� December 1993 Preservation Lai porter