## Facts

- John J. Turchi, Jr. and Mary E. (Mary Elizabeth) Turchi owned the Dilworth House at 223–25 South Sixth Street in Philadelphia’s Society Hill Historic District, a property designated under Philadelphia’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (HPO).
- The Turchis proposed a project to renovate and preserve the brick-clad main portion of the Dilworth House while removing the side and rear wings and replacing them with a sixteen-story condominium structure connected to the house.
- Because the property was historically designated, the Turchis applied to the Philadelphia Historical Commission for the required permit under the HPO.
- The Historical Commission approved the permit, finding (1) the work was an “alteration,” not a “demolition in significant part,” and (2) the work was “appropriate” under the HPO.
- Two civic groups opposing the project (including Concerned Citizens in Opposition to the Dilworth Development and the Society Hill Civic Association) appealed the Commission’s approval to the Philadelphia Board of License and Inspection Review (Board).
- The Board conducted its review and reversed the Commission, disagreeing with the Commission’s readings of “demolition in significant part” and “appropriate,” and denied the permit.
- The Turchis appealed the Board’s denial to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, which affirmed the Board.
- The Turchis then appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

## Issues

1. When the Board reviews an HPO permit decision of the Historical Commission, must the Board accept the Commission’s reasonable interpretations of key HPO terms rather than replacing them with the Board’s own interpretations?
2. Does the Board’s “de novo” review power allow it to reweigh the record and reject the Commission’s supported determinations that the project was not a “demolition in significant part” and was “appropriate” under the HPO?

## Decision

- The Commonwealth Court vacated the trial court’s order affirming the Board and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
- The court held that the Historical Commission’s reasonable interpretations of the Historic Preservation Ordinance are entitled to deference in Board review.
- The court concluded the Board erred by rejecting the Commission’s reasonable readings of “demolition in significant part” and “appropriate” and by substituting its own judgment where the Commission’s determinations were supported by substantial evidence.

## Legal Principles

- When a legislative scheme assigns administration of an ordinance to a specific agency, that agency’s reasonable interpretation of the ordinance receives deference and should be accepted unless it is plainly wrong or inconsistent with the ordinance text.
- A municipal board assigned to hear appeals from an administering agency acts in a reviewing, adjudicatory capacity; it is not authorized to function as a second administering agency unless the law clearly grants that power.
- “De novo” review in an administrative appeal does not automatically permit the reviewing body to discard the administering agency’s reasonable construction of ordinance terms or to replace supported findings simply because the reviewing body would decide differently.
- Where the administering agency’s determinations rest on record evidence meeting the substantial-evidence standard, a reviewing tribunal may not reverse by reweighing the same evidence and choosing a different outcome.
- In HPO permit matters, the Commission is the body charged with applying the ordinance’s preservation standards; key classifications such as “alteration” versus “demolition in significant part,” and judgments of “appropriateness,” are primarily for the Commission to make in the first instance.

## Conclusion

The Commonwealth Court ruled that the Philadelphia Board of License and Inspection Review could not treat an appeal from the Historical Commission’s HPO permit approval as a chance to apply its own preferred readings of the ordinance and redo the Commission’s supported determinations; because the Commission’s interpretations and findings were reasonable and backed by substantial evidence, the court vacated the trial court’s affirmance of the Board and remanded for proceedings consistent with that requirement of deference.


Turchi v. Philadelphia Board of License and Inspection Review, 20 A.3d 586 (2011)