## Facts

- The Howe-Childs-Gateway House, a circa-1860 Gothic Revival dwelling in Pittsburgh, was designated a local historic structure under a city preservation ordinance in April 1986.
- The structure had not been maintained or occupied since 1984 and had deteriorated significantly.
- Alvin and Shirley Weinberg bought the property in February 1988 for $175,000, initially intending to restore it, but later sought to rehabilitate and resell after discovering serious structural problems.
- Renovation costs were estimated at $650,000–$700,000, exceeding both the purchase price and the expected post-renovation value.
- A bank denied financing because rehabilitation costs would exceed the value of the renovated residence.
- The Weinbergs applied for a certificate of appropriateness to demolish the structure; the Historic Review Commission denied the request.
- At the Commission hearing, a realtor opined the property might sell “as is” for $200,000–$300,000, but acknowledged there were no comparable properties supporting the estimate.

## Issues

1. Whether the owners proved “economic hardship” under Pittsburgh’s historic-preservation ordinance such that denial of a demolition certificate was improper.
2. Whether the Commission’s denial was unsupported by substantial evidence in light of the owners’ unrebutted evidence of infeasible rehabilitation and inability to secure financing.

## Decision

- The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Court of Common Pleas’ order reversing the Commission.
- The court held the owners met their burden to show sufficient economic hardship to justify demolition under the ordinance.
- The court treated the cost-to-value mismatch and denial of financing as strong evidence the property could not be put to a reasonably viable economic use if preservation requirements were enforced.
- The court viewed the Commission’s reliance on speculative “as is” resale testimony as insufficient to defeat the hardship showing.

## Legal Principles

- A local historic-preservation ordinance may condition demolition of a designated structure on issuance of a certificate of appropriateness.
- Where the ordinance provides an economic-hardship exception, the applicant must show that enforcement would impose unreasonable economic hardship, commonly framed as inability to make a reasonable or viable economic use of the property.
- On appellate review of an administrative denial, the decision must be supported by substantial evidence; reversal is warranted where the agency fails to account for unrebutted, record-based proof establishing the ordinance’s hardship standard.

## Conclusion

The Commonwealth Court sustained the trial court’s reversal of the Historic Review Commission, concluding that the owners’ evidence of extraordinary rehabilitation costs, inability to obtain financing, and lack of reliable market alternatives established economic hardship sufficient to require approval of demolition under the city ordinance.


Weinberg v. City of Pittsburgh, Historic Rev. Comm’n, 651 A.2d 1182 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1994)