Appeals court upholds ruling denying historic status for Bloomfield church
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
An appeals court has denied Pittsburgh’s challenge of a lower court ruling that vacated the designation of a former Bloomfield church building as a historic structure.
Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, in an opinion issued Monday, said it affirmed an Allegheny County Common Pleas Court decision because Pittsburgh City Council never voted on the matter.
“… It is clear that the designation of the nominated structure on the subject property received no affirmative votes by city council,” Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson wrote. “Under these circumstances, the historical designation of the nominated structure on the subject property was improper. Thus, the trial court properly vacated the designation on this basis.”
The city’s Historic Review Commission in early 2016 determined that the Albright United Methodist Church building at 486 S. Graham St. merited consideration for historic status. The building’s owner, the Western Pennsylvania Annual Conference of the United MethodistChurch, objected.
Lindsay Patross of Shadyside, founder of Friends of Albright, nominated the building in February 2016. Conference attorneys spoke against the nomination, arguing city code did not allow the commission to accept a nomination from an outside party.
In March 2016, the city planning commission approved that nomination — amid the conference’s objections — and sent its decision to city council. Judge Simpson pointed out that a resolution on the designation was referred to committee three months later. Although city council held a subsequent public hearing on the designation, the council “never voted on whether the subject property should be designated historic,” he wrote.
In its ruling, Common Pleas Court said, “… where the owner of a nominated property objects to the proposed historic designation, the designation of a nominated structure, site, or object shall require the affirmative vote of six members of city council. Despite the conference’s continuous objections at each and every step of these proceedings, the city erroneously and unconstitutionally concluded that a deemed approval occurred despite written opposition by the owner.”