Turchi v. Philadelphia Board of License & Inspection Review
2011 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 175
Pa. Commw. Ct.2011Background
- Landowners seek permit to renovate the historic Dilworth House in Society Hill by removing wings and adding a 16-story condo structure; Historical Commission approved as alteration, not demolition, and found project appropriate under §14-2007(7)(k).
- Board of License and Inspection Review reversed the Historical Commission, disagreeing with its definitions of alteration, demolition, and appropriateness; Board conducted its own findings and concluded the project was not appropriately defined by the Commission.
- Trial court affirmed the Board, holding deference to the Historical Commission was not required and Board could review the Commission’s determinations de novo.
- This appeal asks whether the Board must defer to the Historical Commission’s interpretations under the Historic Preservation Ordinance and, if so, to what extent.
- Court ultimately remands to the Board to issue a new determination with deference to the Historical Commission’s interpretations, vacating the trial court’s order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board must defer to the Historical Commission’s interpretations. | Turchi argues the Board reviews de novo without deference. | Board contends deference is not required to Historic interpretations. | Deference required; remand for Board to defer to Commission. |
| Whether the Board properly interpreted ‘alteration,’ ‘demolition,’ and ‘in significant part.’ | Historical Commission definitions should govern. | Board can reinterpret terms if supported by record. | Board erred by substituting its own interpretations; remand. |
| Whether the Board properly considered ‘appropriateness’ factors. | Commission’s seven factors should be applied as written. | Board limited review to portions of factors; overruled. | Board failed to defer to Commission’s interpretation of appropriateness; remand. |
| Whether the Board should be the final arbiter or defer to Commission. | Board should review for error without substituting policy. | Board as appellate reviewer can modify findings. | Remand to Board with deference to Commission’s interpretations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm’n, 499 U.S. 144 (U.S. 1991) (agency interpretations of regulations receive deference if reasonable)
- North American Refractories Corp. v. Dept. of Env’t Protection, 791 A.2d 464 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (administrative agencies have authoritative interpretive powers in their domain)
- Forbes Health Sys. v. Dept. of Pub. Welfare, 492 Pa. 77 (Pa. 1980) (agency interpretations are entitled to deference)
- Colville v. Allegheny County Retirement Bd., 592 Pa. 433 (Pa. 2007) (great deference to administrative interpretations of governing statute)
- Rendell v. State Ethics Comm’n, 603 Pa. 292 (Pa. 2009) (courts afford substantial deference to agency interpretations of law)