August 1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

aware of the consequences of such a designation." The court further stated that "[t]he fact that they did not engage the services of an archi- tect or contractor to estimate the cost or feasibility of restoring the Gateway House cannot serve as a basis for their claims of economic hardship after the fact." Analysis. The decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh Historic Review Com- mission v. Weinberg represents a major victory for the authority of local governments to protect histor- ic resources under local preserva- tion laws. The high court's ruling under- scores the general rule that the burden of proof in a hardship claim lies on the appli- cant rather than the commission: generally the applicant must establish, by credible evidence, that he or she has been deprived of all reasonable or beneficial use of. the property. The decision further highlights the importance of affording commission members deference in ruling on applications for certifi- cates of hardship. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's adherence to the three-part test for assessing economic impact set forth in Maher v. City of New Orleans, 516 F.2d 1051 (5th Cir. 1975), and adopted by the Pennsyl- vania Commonwealth Court in First Presbyterian, also helps to clarify that a property owner, at least in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, must establish that the sale of therty is impracti- cable. Contrary to the lower courts' rulings, property owners may not demolish historic property unless they are able to demonstrate that the property cannot be sold "as is" without economic hardship. Finally, the decision under- scores the important role strong judicial precedent can play in sup- porting efforts to preserve historic property. In reviewing the Commis- sion's appeal, the court drew from three important and controlling cases on the issue of regulatory takings with respect to historic pro- perty—Penn Central Transporta- tion Co. v City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), united Artists Theater Circuit v. City of Philadelphia, 635 A.2d 612 (Pa. 1993)[12 PLR 1165], and First Presbyterian Church v. City Coun- cil of York, 360 A.2d 257 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1976). These cases continue to provide a strong foundation upon which commissions can rely in exercising their judgment in rul- ing on requests to demolish proper- ty or applications for economic hardship exceptions. .In considering the Weinbergs' "reasonable in- vestment -backed expectations," the court noted that they had purchased the property with full knowledge of its landmark status. [Sidney Baker, Esq., of Pittsburgh, represented the Weinbergs.Jacque- line Morrow; Esq., and George Specter, Esq., represented the City of Pittsburgh. Elizabeth Merritt, Esq., and Alexandra Acosta, Esq., represented amicus curiae National Trust for Historic Preservation; Brenda Barrett, Esq., represented amicus curiae Pennsylvania Histor- ical and Museum Commission.] 15 PLR 1090 Preservation Law Reporter May 1996 ��