A.M. Rufo and TR Getz, LP v. Board of License and Inspection Review and City of Philadelphia ~ Appeal of: The City of Philadelphia
152 A.3d 400
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016Background
- Owner Anthony M. Rufo (through TR Getz, LP) owns a vacant building in Philadelphia; Department of License and Inspection issued a violation notice (May 15, 2012) citing lack of windows/doors and designation as a "blighting influence" under the Property Maintenance Code.
- The violation relied on the City’s Windows/Doors Ordinance (PM-306.2), which requires vacant buildings that are blighting influences to have windows with frames and glazing and entry doors rather than merely boarded or masonry-sealed openings.
- Rufo appealed, arguing the ordinance is unconstitutional because it compels aesthetics rather than addressing safety; he also raised other constitutional and penalty arguments before the Board.
- The Board credited City testimony, found the property vacant and a blighting influence, and affirmed the violation; it rejected Rufo’s constitutional claims.
- The trial court reversed, holding the Windows/Doors Ordinance targets purely aesthetic concerns (appearance of occupancy) and therefore exceeds the municipality’s police power because aesthetics alone are not a permissible basis.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court: record evidence did not show a substantial relation between the ordinance and public health/safety, and City testimony relied on conclusory references to unidentified studies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of Windows/Doors Ordinance under municipal police power | Rufo: ordinance is purely aesthetic; not a proper exercise of police power | City: ordinance is rationally related to public health, safety, and welfare; combats blight | Held: ordinance is based on aesthetics alone and is impermissible exercise of police power |
| Sufficiency of City evidence linking ordinance to blight reduction | Rufo: City presented only conclusory testimony about studies | City: City witnesses and legislative history show safety/blight rationale | Held: City testimony was conclusory; legislative hearing evidence not in record and cannot be considered |
| Permissibility of requiring operable windows/doors where masonry/boards can secure safety | Rufo: allowing masonry/boards behind operable fixtures shows focus on appearance | City: ordinance allows security measures and aims to reduce blight-related harms | Held: the Board’s own finding that masonry/boards behind operable fixtures suffices demonstrates aesthetic focus, undermining safety rationale |
| Appellate procedural issue: whether City appeal should be quashed for filing defect | City: appeal should proceed despite alleged failure to send copy of notice to trial court | Rufo implied procedural defect warranted quash | Held: appeal not quashed; no prejudice shown and Pa. R.A.P. 902 permits proceeding |
Key Cases Cited
- Balent v. City of Wilkes-Barre, 669 A.2d 309 (Pa. 1995) (municipal police power regulates property to promote health, safety, and welfare)
- Berwick Area Landlord Ass'n v. Borough of Berwick, 48 A.3d 524 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (rational basis standard and requirement that regulation bear real and substantial relation to its objective)
- Redevelopment Authority of the City of Oil City v. Woodring, 430 A.2d 1243 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981) (municipal police power may not be grounded solely on aesthetics)
- Mack v. Zoning Hearing Board of Plainfield Twp., 558 A.2d 616 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) (appellate court limited to facts certified in record)
- Clark v. Board of License and Inspections Review, 439 A.2d 1291 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981) (scope of review where lower court took no additional evidence)