T. Meyer v. City of Pittsburgh Historic Review Commission
201 A.3d 929
Pa. Commw. Ct.2019Background
- Objectors own a contiguous row of 1860s brick houses on Buena Vista Street called "Lemmon Row." They nominated the row for historic designation; the Historic Review Commission (HRC) accepted the nomination on Nov. 15, 2016, starting a review period during which exterior alterations require HRC approval.
- Heather Johnson owns the lot at 1405 Buena Vista where a house had been demolished in 2013; she applied for a certificate of appropriateness (COA) for a new three‑story single‑family home with an integral garage on Nov. 18, 2016.
- Because Lemmon Row had no adopted design guidelines at the time, the Commission used the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (and, generally, Mexican War Streets guidelines) as guidance and provided comments about compatibility (height, fenestration, garage design, setting back the third story).
- Johnson revised her design following HRC feedback (reduced height, set back third floor, changed materials and window arrangement, altered garage) and the Commission unanimously issued a COA with minor conditions on Feb. 1, 2017. Lemmon Row was formally designated a historic district on May 23, 2017.
- Objectors appealed to the trial court and argued: (1) the HRC erred by using the Secretary’s Standards rather than local guidelines and misapplied them; (2) they were denied due process because they lacked time to draft district guidelines; and (3) the HRC failed to issue an adequate written rationale. The trial court affirmed; the Commonwealth Court affirmed on Jan. 7, 2019.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HRC properly used Secretary of the Interior’s Standards to evaluate the COA | Objectors: HRC should have used Mexican War Streets guidelines or district‑specific guidelines; Secretary’s Standards were inappropriate | City/HRC: Title XI requires use of Secretary’s Standards until district guidelines are developed; HRC acted consistently with code | Held: Use of Secretary’s Standards was proper under Title XI; HRC decision affirmed |
| Whether Johnson’s design complied with the Secretary’s Standards (compatibility) | Objectors: New house differs in stories, plane, door/window rhythm, garage fenestration — not "compatible" | HRC/City: Standards require compatibility in massing/scale/features, not exact replication; HRC reviewed and required modifications; expertise entitled to deference | Held: Substantial evidence supports HRC’s finding of compatibility; deference to HRC was appropriate |
| Whether Objectors were denied procedural due process | Objectors: Use of federal standards and HRC action reduced property rights; they lacked time to draft guidelines | City/HRC: Objectors had notice and opportunity to be heard at public meetings; Commission, not residents, develops guidelines | Held: No due process violation — Objectors received notice and chance to be heard; claim rejected |
| Whether HRC was required to issue a written report explaining its COA decision and whether the record was incomplete | Objectors: HRC failed to provide findings addressing the Secretary’s Standards; record incomplete | City/HRC: Title XI required written findings only for economic hardship certificates; the record (meeting transcripts, application, drawings) was complete | Held: Claim waived or meritless; no written report required for COA; record was sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Turchi v. Philadelphia Board of License and Inspection Review, 20 A.3d 586 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (agency interpretation of statute entitled to deference absent fraud, bad faith, abuse of discretion)
- Winslow-Quattlebaum v. Maryland Ins. Group, 752 A.2d 878 (Pa. 2000) (standard for deference to administrative interpretation)
- Tegzes v. Township of Bristol, 472 A.2d 1386 (Pa. 1984) (standard of review for appeals from local agency decisions)
- Lyness v. State Board of Medicine, 605 A.2d 1204 (Pa. 1992) (due process protections under state constitution aligned with federal standards)
- Muscarella v. Commonwealth, 87 A.3d 966 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (procedural due process elements summarized)