Troiani Group & Troy Dev. Assoc., L.P. v. City of Pittsburgh Bd. of Appeals & City of Pittsburgh, 86 C.D. 2021

Background

Troiani owns a deteriorated 6‑story building at 209 First Avenue (vacant ~50 years) and four adjacent Market Street buildings (vacant ~since early 2000s).
Troiani obtained Board authorization for emergency demolition of the First Avenue building, then submitted an engineered Demolition Plan that called for first demolishing the adjacent Market Street structures as a safety measure.
PLI Building Code Official David Green denied the Demolition Plan, citing that demolition of the Market Street buildings required separate permits and Planning Commission approval and that demolishing adjacent structures is not a required or standard protection measure.
At the Board hearing Troiani presented structural‑engineer testimony that demolishing the Market Street buildings was necessary to avoid catastrophic, uncontrolled collapse and projectiles; PLI relied on internal review and Green’s judgment that the plan exceeded code requirements.
The Board affirmed PLI’s denial in a terse written decision that recited witnesses but gave no findings or reasons; the trial court affirmed; the Commonwealth Court vacated and remanded because the Board’s decision lacked the required findings and reasoning and thus frustrated meaningful appellate review.
The Commonwealth Court granted Troiani’s motion to supplement the record with PLI’s subsequent Condemnation/Compliance notices and ordered an expedited remand and decision timeline.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Board erred in denying the Demolition Plan/variance to demolish adjacent Market Street buildings as a necessary protective measure	Demolition of adjacent buildings is the only safe method; expert engineers so testified; variance justified by unique danger and Troiani’s site control	PLI lacks authority to approve demolition of adjacent parcels; Planning Commission denied those demolitions; demolishing adjacent buildings is not standard or code‑required	Court vacated Board decision and remanded for a reasoned decision based on the record (did not decide substantive merits)
Whether the Board misapplied or failed to apply UCC variance/interpretation standards (34 Pa. Code §403.122)	Board failed to analyze whether the UCC was misinterpreted or whether a variance was warranted; no application of statutory standards	Board concluded denial was within Building Code Official’s discretion based on internal technical review and experience	Court found Board’s written order lacked findings and reasons required by law and remanded for application of governing standards with explanation
Whether the Board capriciously disregarded competent expert evidence (due‑process/substantial‑evidence challenge)	Troiani’s expert testimony constituted strong critical evidence that the Board ignored without resolving conflicts or making credibility findings	PLI relied on internal peer review and experience and contested engineers’ conclusions	Court held that the absence of factual findings prevented review of whether the Board disregarded evidence; remand required so the Board can address the evidence explicitly
Procedural remedy and record supplementation	Troiani sought judicial notice of subsequent condemnation/compliance notices and expedited relief	City did not oppose judicial notice	Court granted supplementation, ordered expedited remand: trial court to remand to Board within 7 days and Board to issue new decision within 20 days, with expedited trial‑court review if appealed

Key Cases Cited

Peak v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 501 A.2d 1383 (Pa. 1985) (administrative factfinder’s decision must be explained in sufficient detail to permit meaningful appellate review)
Fisler v. State Sys. of Higher Educ., Cal. Univ. of Pa., 78 A.3d 30 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (due‑process requirement for reasoned adjudication and ability to conduct substantial‑evidence review)
Salters v. Pa. State Police Mun. Police Officers’ Educ. & Training Comm’n, 912 A.2d 347 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (absence of reasoned adjudication can frustrate appellate review)
Balshy v. Pa. State Police, 988 A.2d 813 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (adjudicator must address strong critical evidence that contradicts the opposing party’s case)
Kiskadden v. Pa. Dep’t of Env’t Prot., 149 A.3d 380 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (explaining capricious disregard standard and need to resolve conflicting evidence)
Bertram v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 206 A.3d 79 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019) (defining capricious disregard of evidence)
Wise v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 111 A.3d 1256 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (discussing capricious disregard standard)
Schuylkill Twp. v. Pa. Builders Ass’n, 7 A.3d 249 (Pa. 2010) (context on uniform construction code adoption and scope)
Meyer v. City of Pittsburgh Historic Rev. Comm’n, 201 A.3d 929 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019) (standard of review for local agency decisions)