|
poor condition but could be restor-
<br />ed for $600,000, and that a replace-
<br />ment house on the lot would cost
<br />in the range of $570,000 to
<br />$600,000 to build. Another realtor
<br />testified, also on behalf of the
<br />Weinbergs, regarding the value of
<br />the property before and after resto-
<br />ration. He opined that the Gateway
<br />House, if renovated, would sell for
<br />$500,000 to $600,000 while a new
<br />house built on the site would be
<br />worth $800,000. He also stated that
<br />he believed the house could be sold
<br />in .its- current condition in the
<br />$200,000 range, but that it would
<br />be impossible to know "without
<br />trying to market [the
<br />property] full tilt."
<br />The Commission
<br />ultimately ruled
<br />against the Weinbergs,
<br />finding that the house
<br />could be renovated for
<br />an amount between
<br />$650,000 to $700,000,
<br />or alternatively, that
<br />the house could be
<br />sold "as is." The Com-
<br />mission also noted that
<br />"the purchase price
<br />should not be used as an element of
<br />the hardship argument, since a
<br />mistakenly high payment for the
<br />building was a matter under the
<br />control of the owners."
<br />The Weinbergs thereafter ap-
<br />pealed the Commission's decision
<br />to the Court of Common Pleas of
<br />Allegheny County. The trial court,
<br />in Weinberg v. City of Pittsburgh
<br />Historic Review Commission, No.
<br />SA 981-1990 (C.P. Alleg. Cty. Nov.
<br />29, 1993)[13 PLR 10681 reversed the
<br />Commission, ruling that the record
<br />did not support the'ssion's
<br />determination that einbergs
<br />had failed to meet t i urden of
<br />proof showing that the sale of the
<br />Gateway House was "impractica-.
<br />ble." The court found that the
<br />Commission had erred in conclud-
<br />ing that the realtor's testimony on
<br />the value of the house after renova-
<br />tion was equivocal and therefore
<br />incompetent. The trial court con-
<br />cluded, based on the realtor's testi-
<br />mony, that it was not economically
<br />feasible to renovate the house be-
<br />cause the cost of renovations would
<br />exceed the fair market value of the
<br />property upon renovation.
<br />The Commonwealth Court of
<br />Pennsylvania affirmed the trial
<br />court decision. See Weinberg v.
<br />City of Pittsburgh
<br />Historic Review Com-
<br />mission, 651 A.2d 1182
<br />(Pa. Commw. 1994)[13
<br />PLR 11971. The appeals
<br />court found that "there
<br />was no substantial
<br />evidence that the cost
<br />of renovating the prop-
<br />erty would not exceed
<br />the value of the proper-
<br />ty after renovation."
<br />Agreeing with the trial
<br />court, the Common-
<br />wealth Court concluded that reno-
<br />vation was not economically feasi-
<br />ble.
<br />The Commission
<br />ruled that the
<br />house could be
<br />renovated for
<br />approximately
<br />$650,000 to
<br />$700,000, or al-
<br />ternatively, that
<br />it could be sold
<br />"as is. It
<br />The Court's Decision
<br />The Supreme Court of Pennsyl-
<br />vania ruled in favor of the Commis-
<br />sion, finding that both lower courts
<br />had erred in concluding that the
<br />evidence did not support the Com-
<br />mission's determination that the
<br />Weinbergs had failed to establish
<br />economic hardship. Reinstating the
<br />Commission's decision denying its
<br />permission to demolish the Gate-
<br />way House, the court stated, in an
<br />opinion written by Chief Justice
<br />Nix, that "it is apparent that both
<br />the trial court and Commonwealth
<br />Court failed to consider the circum-
<br />stances surrounding [the Wein-
<br />bergs'] purchase of the Gateway
<br />House."
<br />Drawing from the first prong of
<br />a three-part test set forth in.First
<br />Presbyterian Church v. City Coun-
<br />cil of York, 360 A.2d 257 (1976),
<br />which requires the owner to estab-
<br />lish "that the sale of the property
<br />was impracticable," the Pennsylva-
<br />nia Supreme Court determined that
<br />the evidence in the record support-
<br />ed the Commission's determination
<br />that the Weinbergs had failed to
<br />establish that "it would be imprac-
<br />ticable or impossible to sell their
<br />property." Deferring to the judg-
<br />ment of the Commission, the court
<br />�>
<br />found it reasonable for the Com-
<br />mission to have concluded that the
<br />property could be sold "as is."
<br />In upholding the Commission's
<br />decision, the court specifically re-
<br />jected the Commonwealth Court's
<br />finding that the realtor's testimony
<br />was incompetent with respect to
<br />his conclusion that the property
<br />could be sold for between $200,000
<br />and $300,000. The Commonwealth
<br />t
<br />Court had rejected his testimony
<br />on the basis that he had indicated
<br />that "there were no comparable
<br />properties upon which he could
<br />'
<br />base an expert opinion." The Penn-
<br />t
<br />sylvania Supreme Court, however,
<br />stated that the Commission "obvi-
<br />t
<br />ously gave greater deference to Mr.
<br />Goldblum's experience than to the
<br />t
<br />fact that there were no properties
<br />i
<br />comparable to the Gateway House
<br />s
<br />when Mr. Goldblum rendered his
<br />opinion."
<br />Importantly, the high court also
<br />=% attached significance to the fact
<br />i
<br />that the Weinbergs had "received an
<br />t
<br />inducement to purchase the Gate-
<br />way House in the form of a release
<br />from a preexisting obligation to buy
<br />a townhouse from Greystone." The
<br />court stated that "[a]lthough it is
<br />impossible to ascribe a monetary
<br />value to this benefit, it must none-
<br />theless be considered when evaluat-
<br />ing the economic impact of the
<br />Commission's actions."
<br />In conclusion, the Court stated
<br />that it saw "no reason to delve any
<br />further into the Commission's deci-
<br />sion in this matter." According to
<br />the court:
<br />[The Weinbergs] purchased the Gate-
<br />way House for $175,000 and spent
<br />approximately $36,000 on exterior
<br />repairs. The unrefuted testimony of
<br />their own expert suggests that the
<br />house could be sold for $200,000 to
<br />$300,000. That, together with the
<br />release from the obligation to pur-
<br />chase the townhouse from Greystone,
<br />suggests that [the Weinbergs] could
<br />conceivably realize a profit if they
<br />sold their property.
<br />Citing to its prior decision in Unit-
<br />ed Artists' Theater Circuit v. City
<br />of Philadelphia, 635 A.2d. 612
<br />1993) (also authored by Chief Jus -
<br />ice Nix), the Pennsylvania Su.
<br />preme Court added that "[i]n any
<br />event, [the Weinbergs] have not
<br />demonstrated that they have been
<br />deprived of any profitable use' of
<br />he property."
<br />In closing, the court turned to
<br />he issue of the Weinbergs' "reason-
<br />able investment -backed expecta-
<br />ions." Declining to address the
<br />ssue head on, the court simply
<br />tressed that its ruling in this case
<br />was "bolstered" by the fact that the
<br />Weinbergs knew the. Gateway
<br />House had been desi a histor-
<br />c landmark priortime of
<br />heir purchase andtiftey "were
<br />
|