PA Commonwealth Court Concluded Appellants Did Not Suffer Any Direct Harm by Decisions of Historic Review Commission and Thus Lacked Standing

This post was authored by Olena Botshteyn, Esq.

Historic Review Commission (HRC) reviews applications for alterations to historic buildings and issues certificates of appropriateness in the City of Pittsburgh. When considering such applications, HRC relies on its Design Guidelines. In 2015, Thomas Liang applied to the HRC seeking to replace windows on the front of his property. The Design Guidelines provide that when replaced, the new windows “should match the originals in size, style, operation, and appearance” and that wood windows shall be installed on the front sides of buildings and “aluminum or vinyl replacement windows may be used in the sides and rears”. Having relied on the guidelines, HRC recommended installation of wood windows on the front façade of the building and approved the request. The owner disregarded the recommendation and installed aluminum windows throughout the property.

In 2019, Elsens, the new property owners, applied to the HRC seeking to replace aluminum windows with vinyl ones, as aluminum windows turned out to be defective. At the hearing on the application, Elsens described that the vinyl windows would be energy efficient and would keep the same “wonderful modern look” as aluminum ones. They also argued that most companies no longer sell wood exterior windows. Appellants Gates and Pascal, who own properties two blocks away from Elsens’ property attended the hearing and argued that the house is historic and that vinyl windows do not contribute to it. They also stated that Design Guidelines specifically state that replacement windows should be wooden. Despite this, in November 2019, the HRC approved the Elsens’ application. Appellants then commenced this action. In March 2020, the City which intervened in the case, filed a motion to quash appeal, arguing that Appellants lack standing here. The trial court granted the motion, and Appellants referred to this court.

On appeal, the court affirmed the district court’s decision, having concluded that Appellants lacked standing. For standing to exist, a party must have been aggrieved, meaning that it has a “substantial, direct and immediate interest in the outcome of the litigation.” Substantial interest means a greater interest than the common interest of all citizens, direct interest requires to establish a causal link between the violation and the harm suffered and immediate interest requires a causal link to not be too remote or speculative. Appellants argued that they had substantial interest, since installation of vinyl windows sets a precedent for Design Guidelines to be ignored and makes their efforts in adhering to the guidelines purposeless. They also argued that their interest is direct, since their properties are very close to Elsens’ property. Having properly acknowledged the proximity of the properties, the court stated that this fact alone is not enough to establish standing. It also stated that HRC is entitled to deference when making its decisions on the appropriateness of proposed changes to historical buildings, and that Design Guidelines are not the law, but merely a set of recommendations, aimed at guiding the HRC. The court further concluded that Appellants have not been aggrieved, as they never asserted any direct non-speculative harm the HRC’s decision has upon them.

Gates v City of Pittsburgh Historic Review Commission, 2021 WL 2343267 (PA Cmwlth 6/9/2021)