August 1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

E". G = ..�, _ ._. U11A�T OR �Y Pennsylvania Supreme Court Reverses Weinberg, Rejecting Takings Claim Upholds Pittsburgh's Refusal to Permit Demolition of Historic House The Supreme Court of Pen- nsylvania has reinstated a decision of the Pittsburgh Historic Review Commission denying permission to demol- ish the historic Howe -Childs - Gateway House, a two and one-half story frame house built around 1860 in the Gothic Revival style. In a unanimous decision (one jus- tice declining to participate), the high court stated that it "disagree[d] with the lower courts that the record does not support the Commission's decision to deny a certificate supported the Commission's finding that the owners failed to meet their burden of proof in establishing that sale of the property "as is" would be "im- practicable or impossible" or (2) that they had been "`de- prived of any profitable use' of their property." In reaching its decision, the Pennsylvania court placed particular emphasis on the importance of examining the specific factual circumstances surrounding a dispute in rul- ing on takings claims. The court attached particular sig - of appropriateness." ' .niticance to the fact that the Drawing from three-impor- 6, `owners knew the property had tant decisions on the issue of been designated as a land - regulatory takings, Penn Cen- mark before purchasing the tral nazisportation Co. v property; that they had failed City of New York, 438 U.S. to engage an architect or con - 104 (1978), United Artists tractor to estimate the cost or Theater Circuit v. City of feasibility of renovating the Philadelphia, 635 A.2d 612 house before its purchase; and (Pa. 1993)[12 PLR 1165] and that the house had been pur- First Presbyterian Church v. chased by the owners, in part, City Council of York, 360 as consideration for a release A.2d 257 (Pa. Commw. Ct. from a contract to purchase a 1976), the Pennsylvania Su- townhouse. preme Court concluded that The Pennsylvania Supreme (1) the evid—i i in the record Court's ruling is important not ion Law Re orter May 1996 only for the Commonwealth l of Pennsylvania but for other jurisdictions as well. The high_ court's decision should help to bolster commissions in exer- cising their responsibilities in ruling on applications for cer- tificates of appropriateness based on economic hardship. The decision both underscores the general rule that the bur- den of proof rests on the prop- erty owner—not the commis- sion --in establishing econom- ic hardship, and that commis- sions should be afforded defer- ence in ruling on both the sufficiency and the compe- tence of the evidence present- ed. The Pennsylvania court's ruling also highlights the im- portance of "reasonable invest- ment -backed expectations," the second prong of the two- part test for consideration of regulatory takings set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Pend Central. In assessing the economic impact of a particu- lar action, both commissions and reviewing courts should closely examine the circum- stances giving rise to the con- troversy at issue, (City of Pittsburgh Historic Review Commission v. Weinberg, 676 A.2d 207 (Pa. May 21, 1996).) This case involved a chal- lenge by Alvin and Shirley Weinberg (the Weinbergs) of the decision of the Pittsburgh His- May1996 Preservation toric Review Commission to deny a certificate of appropriateness i0 demolish the Howe -Childs -Gate- way House (Gateway House). The structure, originally a gatehouse along Pittsburgh's "Millionaire's Row," was designated by the City as a historic landmark in April 1986, The Weinbergs purchased the Gateway House from Greystone Associates, a townhouse developer, in 1988, under the terms of an agreement releasing them from t contract to buy a townhouse built by Greystone. Although the Wein- bergs paid $175,000 for the house the property was assessed at a rate representing a fair market value o. $160,000. At the time of purchase the Gateway House was in a dilapi dated condition, requiring extensivf repairs. After purchasing the property the Weinbergs sought and obtaine( permission from the Historic Re view Commission to begin restora tion work on the property. Howev er, the Weinbergs' contractor re ported that he could not perforr- the agreed-upon work because c "serious structural problems" an their bank would not finance th rehabilitation work without othc collateral because the house did nc meet its collateral requirement: Accordingly, the Weinbergs applie to the Commission for a certificat of appropriateness to demolish & property and replace it with a ne- brick house. At the hearings before ti - Commission, the Weinbergs pr rented testimony to establish th it was not economically feasible renovate the property. An archite testified on behalf of the Weinber that the G y House was Lava Repo r i) 15 PLR 10