Category Archive: Religious Properties
-
PennDOT offers four options for Route 28
By David M. Brown
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Tuesday, July 15, 2003State transportation officials on Monday unveiled two proposals for widening Route 28 that would spare the historic St. Nicholas Church on the North Side.
Two other proposals still under consideration, however, put the 100-year-old building in the path of a wrecking ball. Pittsburgh City Council in 2001 approved a historic designation for the church, which belongs to the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh. The historical designation doesn’t rule out demolition of the building, but it complicates the process.
Engineers from the state Department of Transportation yesterday outlined four remaining alternatives for the project during a briefing for public officials on a study of estimated costs and the feasibility of the proposals.
“This at least … gives some viable alternatives for public consideration,” said Edward Pugh, an aide to state Sen. Jack Wagner, a Beechview Democrat. Pugh was among about two dozen municipal representatives and legislative aides who attended the session at the state Department of Environmental Protection offices on Washington’s Landing in Pittsburgh.
To present the four alternatives to the public, PennDOT will hold an open house Wednesday from 4:30 to 8:30 p.m. at the Three Rivers Rowing Association boathouse, 300 Waterfront Drive, also on Washington’s Landing.
The road project, expected to cost between $140 million and $200 million, is expected to unclog traffic along a 2-mile corridor and make Route 28 safer by separating southbound and northbound traffic and widening the existing lanes. Federal highway funds are expected to cover about 80 percent of the cost.
An alternative still being considered that would spare St. Nicholas Church — site of the first Croatian Roman Catholic parish in the Western Hemisphere — is a modified version of a plan developed by George R. White, chairman of the transportation committee of the Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation.
“You live again to fight another day,” White said when told PennDOT had advanced a version of his plan.
The plan — which involves elevating the highway above railroad tracks that run adjacent to Route 28 — would be the more expensive of the alternatives, according to PennDOT’s estimates. It would cost about $200 million. The next closest alternative would cost about $160 million.
“I don’t know what the politicians will decide, but the cost is close enough … that it merits public debate,” White said.
Other alternatives include:
Construction that cuts into the hillside with terraces in the Troy Hill area of the North Side, cutting a swath through properties along Route 28, including the church, the Millvale Industrial Park and Feilbach Street in Millvale.
Construction that would cut less into the hillside but would cause railroad tracks to be moved, as well as demolition of the church and industrial park.
Construction of an “urban artery” that would be more narrow than the other alternatives because it would have only 2-foot gutters, instead of 10-foot shoulders. This plan would avoid the church.
All options include four 12-foot lanes, with auxiliary lanes for traffic moving to and from the 31st Street and 40th Street bridges, said Thomas C. Fox, an assistant district engineer with PennDOT. A key element of the project is to keep northbound and southbound traffic from being stopped by traffic signals which make it possible for other vehicles to use the bridges.
Construction is not expected to start before 2008. The project is slated to be completed in 2011.
David M. Brown can be reached at dbrown@tribweb.com or (412) 380-5614.
This article appeared in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review © Pittsburgh Tribune Review
-
City council approves historic designation law
By Andrew Conte
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Wednesday, February 26, 2003Only the owners of religious buildings will be able to nominate the structures for historic status in Pittsburgh under legislation approved by City Council on Tuesday.
Councilwoman Barbara Burns, who had opposed the measure in a preliminary vote, supported it in the end. She was joined by Bob O’Connor, the primary sponsor; President Gene Ricciardi, Jim Motznik, Twanda Carlisle and Alan Hertzberg. William Peduto and Sala Udin remained opposed.
Mayor Tom Murphy has not said whether he will veto the measure, which council might not be able to override with O’Connor’s departure. He left council yesterday to run Gov. Ed Rendell’s Southwestern Pennsylvania office.
“We believe in preservation rather than designation,” said the Rev. Ronald Lengwin, spokesman for the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh, which supported the bill. He said the diocese has no immediate plans to close any parishes.
Udin said the bill takes too much authority away from council. “It removes the mayor, City Council and congregations from the process of historic designation for churches,” he said. “O’Connor’s bill is written in such a way that the only ones who can save a historic church are the ones who want to destroy it.”
In other business, council also unanimously approved spending $100,000 to light new Ultimate Frisbee fields in Highland Park and $50,000 to install Jersey barriers along McArdle Roadway.
Finally, Motznik introduced legislation directing the mayor’s office to investigate nightclubs and other venues where people gather for concerts. He wants the administration to also create an emergency training program for operators of those venues in the event of fires and other hazardous incidents.
His bill follows an incident in Rhode Island Thursday in which 97 people died in a nightclub fire. Four days before that, 21 people died in a stampede at a Chicago nightclub. Motznik’s legislation comes up for discussion and a preliminary vote March 5.
Andrew Conte can be reached at aconte@tribweb.com or (412) 765-2312.
This article appeared in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review. © Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
-
City Council shelters religious buildings from historic preservation rules – Only owners allowed to seek historic status
By Tom Barnes,
Post-Gazette Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 26, 2003City Council gave approval yesterday to exempting religious buildings from a key provision of the city’s historic preservation law, but the controversy may not be over yet.
Many preservationists expect council to be sued because of its action, which critics claim violates the state Constitution and requirements to treat all groups equally under the law.
“I think there is a 110 percent chance that this will be challenged in court,” said John DeSantis, chairman of the city’s Historic Review Commission and an opponent of council’s action.
Council voted 6-2 in favor of the measure, which was sponsored by outgoing Councilman Bob O’Connor. It says that only the owner of record of a religious building — a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, rectory or convent — can nominate it for historic status.
Under the city’s current preservation law, enacted in 1979, almost any city official or any resident who has lived in Pittsburgh for a year could nominate a religious building for historic status. If the historic status was approved by council, a church or other religious building couldn’t be demolished or have exterior renovations without the approval of the Historic Review Commission.
Many leaders of different religious faiths supported O’Connor’s measure, saying the threat of having a building nominated for historic status was an expensive burden that could force them to spend dollars on buildings instead of people.
Mayor Tom Murphy hasn’t said if he’ll sign the bill. If he vetoes it, six council votes would be needed to overturn the veto.
An opinion issued yesterday by Deputy City Solicitor George Specter said the law was “evolving” in the area of historic preservation and wasn’t completely clear on exemptions for religious structures.
Specter said no other town in Pennsylvania has enacted such a religious exception.
“The courts could discern a middle ground pursuant to which the [O’Connor] bill would be held valid,” he said.
The state Constitution does say that “no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship,” he said, adding, “It is possible that [O’Connor’s bill] could be deemed to be in direct conflict” with that provision.
Council members O’Connor, Alan Hertzberg, Jim Motznik, Gene Ricciardi, Twanda Carlisle and Barbara Burns voted for the measure, with William Peduto and Sala Udin opposed. Burns, who had voted against the measure in a preliminary vote last week, said she also expects a court challenge.
“This is something that needs to be litigated,” she said.
Udin said church members had been bombarding his office with e-mail and phone calls in support of O’Connor’s bill.
“I used to think that organized labor could put on a lobbying campaign, but the campaign for this bill makes organized labor look like the Cub Scouts,” he said.
Udin questioned whether church members understood the full significance of the bill. It takes away the power of ordinary members of a congregation to nominate their buildings as historic, he said, vesting it only in church leaders.
Also yesterday, council approved $50,000 to install concrete barriers along McArdle Roadway to prevent cars from going over the edge. A woman died last month when her car veered off McArdle, went through an iron railing and plummeted some 300 feet.
But Hertzberg said he would work with the Riverlife Task Force and others to develop a more attractive type of barrier, one that doesn’t block views of the city skyline.
Tom Barnes can be reached at tbarnes@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1548.
This article appeared in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. © Pittsburgh Post Gazette
-
Historic haste / Shelve an unfair break for religious buildings
Pittsburgh Post Gazette
Editorial Page
Monday, February 24, 2003City Council is expected to vote tomorrow on final approval of legislation that would give churches and other religious structures special treatment when it comes to historic designations. The vote should be no, and council should go back to the drawing board.
The ordinance sponsored by Councilman Bob O’Connor, soon to quit council to take a position in the Rendell administration, is a response to some legitimate frustrations with the historic-designation process on the part of local religious bodies, especially the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh.
The diocese is upset that churches it has decided to close or demolish, most recently St. Nicholas Church on East Ohio Street, were the subject of historic-designation nominations at the “eleventh hour.” The diocese’s lawyer also has complained about what its lawyer called a “highly discretionary” process that “leaves ample room for misuse” and can force churches to divert resources needed for its ministries to the upkeep of unwanted buildings.
These are serious objections, and in the case of St. Nicholas the Post-Gazette editorialized against historic status for the church. But Councilman O’Connor’s remedy, which received preliminary approval last week by a 5-3 vote, is the wrong approach.
Instead of overhauling the historic-designation process as it applies to all buildings, the O’Connor ordinance gives a free pass to religious structures. If the ordinance becomes law, churches, synagogues and other religious buildings could be nominated for historic status only by their owners.
Under current law, any citizen can nominate a structure for historic designation, which ultimately is granted by a vote of City Council. If a site is designated as historic, it cannot be demolished or externally renovated without the approval of the Historic Review Commission. If the ordinance were adopted, this would still be the case for nonreligious buildings — a preference for religion that could raise First Amendment problems.
The lawyer for the Catholic Diocese suggests that special exemption for religious buildings is grounded in legal precedents protecting “the interest of religious institutions in managing their affairs free from government intrusion.
But churches aren’t the only buildings where constitutional rights are exercised. Under the diocese’s logic, a newspaper building, no matter how distinguished architecturally, could not be nominated by outsiders for historic designation because the designation might force the publisher to shift funds from reporting the news, an activity protected by the First Amendment, to maintaining a “historic” building.
Mr. O’Connor’s intentions are good, but this ordinance is poorly conceived and constitutionally problematic. Moreover, there are other approaches deserving of council’s study.
Before approving the O’Connor bill, council brushed aside an alternative proposal by Councilman Sala Udin that would have avoided the issue of special treatment for churches by preventing residents from nominating any structures for historic designation. (Such nominations could still be made by the mayor, council and the city planning and historic review commissions.) We’re not convinced that the Udin approach is preferable to current law, but at least it doesn’t raise concerns about special breaks for churches.
Bob O’Connor may deserve a going-away present form his councilmanic colleagues, but this isn’t it. The ordinance should not receive final approval.
This article appeared in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. © Pittsburgh Post Gazette
-
Church landmark exemption OK’d – City Council gives proposal slim preliminary approval
By Timothy McNulty,
Post-Gazette Staff Writer
Thursday, February 20, 2003A slim majority of Pittsburgh City Council members tentatively approved exempting religious structures from the full weight of the city’s historic designation law, after beating back a proposed compromise plan.
In a 5-3 vote, council approved a change that will allow only the owners of churches and other religious structures to nominate their buildings for historic designation.
Once designated, any exterior renovation or demolition of a building requires approval by the city’s Historic Review Commission. Currently any city resident can nominate structures, along with the mayor, council or members of the Historic Review or city planning commissions.
Religious leaders, led by the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh, lobbied for the change, saying nominations by non-owners infringed on religious business and increased their building maintenance costs.
Preservationists countered that the religious structures are vital parts of Pittsburgh history, there is little proof of cost burdens, and it would be illegal, under city law, to give religious groups special treatment.
The council members who preliminarily voted in favor of the change were Twanda Carlisle, Alan Hertzberg, Jim Motznik, Bob O’Connor and Gene Ricciardi. Barbara Burns, William Peduto and Sala Udin cast negative votes. A final vote is set for Tuesday.
Carlisle, of Homewood, was the swing vote.
In behind-the-scenes deal-making Tuesday, she blocked a bid to fast-track the legislation and hold the final vote today. Then yesterday she considered voting for an amendment by Udin that would have held off the bill even longer.
Diocesan officials have long complained that city residents have used historic nominations to block decisions to sell or demolish churches. So Udin introduced an amendment yesterday that would prevent residents from nominating any structures, including churches and other buildings, but still allowing the mayor, council and the review and planning commissions to nominate them.
The amendment would have required the city to hold more public hearings and studies over several weeks — effectively blocking the church legislation, since O’Connor, the measure’s main sponsor, would have to resign by then to join the Rendell administration — but Carlisle refused to wait. She voted against holding the bill and it was approved.
The councilwoman liked Udin’s idea but said she sided with ministers in her District 9 community who did not want city oversight of their buildings.
“The government needs to step back from that situation and let churches handle church business,” she explained later.
Should council finally approve the bill Tuesday, it would go to Mayor Tom Murphy for his signature. O’Connor said Murphy’s executive secretary, Tom Cox, has assured him the mayor will approve the legislation, but officially the administration is saying it has to give it more review.
The mayor has 10 days after he receives bills to sign or veto them, or let them become law without his signature. It takes six council votes –one more than the legislation currently has — to override a veto.
That means the fate of the legislation and O’Connor’s remaining days on council are still unclear, though with Carlisle’s vote they are looking closer to being finished.
Right after the noontime vote yesterday, O’Connor left the council table to confer with diocesan officials attending the meeting. Carlisle followed, grasping O’Connor’s arm.
“You owe me big time,” she said.
Tim McNulty can be reached at tmcnulty@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1542.
This article appeared in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. © Pittsburgh Post Gazette
-
Historic building revision debated – Church leaders favor proposed exception
By Tom Barnes,
Post-Gazette Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 18, 2003After battling historic preservationists for four months, city Councilman Bob O’Connor and a wide spectrum of local religious leaders are on the verge of enacting a major change in Pittsburgh’s preservation law.
O’Connor, with strong support from Roman Catholic, Protestant and Jewish leaders, wants to ease the “burden” they say the historic preservation law creates for churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, rectories, convents and other religious buildings.
O’Connor’s bill — which could get both a preliminary and final vote tomorrow — says that only the “owner of record” of a religious building can nominate it for city historic status. That status, church leaders claim, can take away their control over their own property and escalate the cost of repairs or structural improvements.
Currently, a variety of city officials, as well as any Pittsburgh resident who has lived in Pittsburgh for at least a year, can nominate a religious building for historic status. Church leaders say such “outsiders” shouldn’t be able to affect the future of a religious building.
If a building’s historic nomination is approved by City Council, the structure cannot have exterior changes made and cannot be demolished without approval from the city’s Historic Review Commission.
Both the HRC and the city planning commissioners are on record opposing O’Connor’s amendment.
The two panels dispute church leaders’ claims that historic status makes it more expensive for a congregation to repair or remodel its buildings.
Church leaders and preservationists have been fighting over O’Connor’s bill since he first proposed it in November.
After clashing before the historic review panel and city planners in the past few weeks, the two sides were still at odds during a council hearing yesterday.
After the hearing, O’Connor said he is sure he still has the necessary five votes to approve the change in the preservation law.
O’Connor and colleagues Jim Motznik, Gene Ricciardi, Alan Hertzberg and Twanda Carlisle are co-sponsors of the amendment to the 24-year-old preservation law and O’Connor expects them to vote for it tomorrow.
If the bill passes, O’Connor said he expects to resign soon from council to become Gov. Ed Rendell’s chief representative for Western Pennsylvania.
“I am waiting to see this bill go through” before leaving council, O’Connor said.
If O’Connor can count votes correctly — and Motznik and Hertzberg said he can — the only remaining question about the change in the historic preservation law would be whether Mayor Tom Murphy will sign it.
Murphy has said in the past he is “sympathetic” to religious leaders’ concerns about the current historic law and the fiscal pressure it puts on them, but he hasn’t said if he will sign or veto O’Connor’s change. If he vetoes it, O’Connor would need a sixth vote to override the veto.
Religious leaders — such as the Rev. David Gleason, pastor of the First Lutheran Church on Grant Street, Downtown; the Rev. Ronald Lengwin of the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh; pastors of several Catholic churches in the city; and Rabbi Alvin Berkun of Tree of Life Synagogue of Squirrel Hill — were united yesterday in favor of O’Connor’s bill.
Legal provisions for building ownership differ from faith to faith, they said, but all agreed that a nonmember of a congregation shouldn’t be able to nominate a religious structure as historic and increase a congregation’s cost for renovations. They said limited church funds should go for missions such as worshiping God and helping the poor.
Opponents of O’Connor’s bill, such as Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation President Arthur Ziegler, Preservation Pittsburgh President Sandra Brown, South Side community leader Carey Harris and Mary McDonough of Oakland, denied claims that the current law imposes unfair burdens on churches or synagogues.
They said O’Connor’s bill is creating a “special class” for religious institutions under the law. As a result, they said, the city could be sued for violating the fairness and equality provisions of state and federal constitutions.
“Why not create special exceptions for schools and banks?” Brown said. “Why not exceptions to zoning or pollution laws?”
Some critics called O’Connor’s measure “undemocratic,” saying it would take the power to nominate a building out of the hands of ordinary church members and vest it in only one, or just a handful, of church leaders, such as a bishop or board of trustees.
Critics also said that a religious building is often an important part of the architecture, history and culture of a community, and more people than just a handful of church leaders should have a voice in whether the building is preserved or demolished.
Tom Barnes can be reached at tbarnes@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1548
This article appeared in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. © Pittsburgh Post Gazette
-
Testimony By Angelique Bamberg, Department of City Planning and staff for the Historic Review Commission & Planning Commission on the Proposed Exemption of Religious Properties From Nomination as City Historic Structures Except By their Owners of Record:
Facts :
1. On December 4, 2002, Councilman Bob O’Connor introduced Bill 1148 into City Council. If passed, this bill would amend the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance to exempt religious properties from nomination except by their owners of record.
2. City Council has requested that the Historic Review Commission and the City Planning Commission conduct a review of this proposed legislation and report their findings to Council within 60 days.
3. The Historic Review Commission held a Public Hearing on the proposed legislation on January 8, 2003. The HRC voted unanimously to recommend that Council NOT ADOPT the proposed legislation. The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on January 14, 2003 and another on January 28th, 2003, and voted unanimously to recommend that Council NOT adopt the proposed legislation.
4. Current Ordinance and Nominating Procedures:
a. Under the City of Pittsburgh’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, Title 11 of the City Code of Ordinances, a Historic Structure, Site, or Object may be nominated by:
i. the Mayor;
ii. a member of City Council;
iii. a member of the Planning Commission;
iv. a member of the Historic Review Commission; or
v. its owner of record or any resident of the City of Pittsburgh who has lived here for at least one year.
b. Once a property has been nominated to become a City Historic Structure, Site, or Object, the Historic Review Commission and City Planning Commission hold public hearings on the proposed designation and make recommendations to City Council.
c. City Council receives the recommendations of the Historic Review and Planning Commissions, holds its own public hearing, and votes on the proposed designation. If the property owner objects to the designation and/or if either Commission submits an unfavorable recommendation, a supermajority (six votes) of Council is required to vote for designation.
d. Once a building is nominated and until City Council votes on whether it should be designated, no exterior alteration (including demolition) may take place without the review and approval of the Pittsburgh Historic Review Commission.
5. Religious Properties Currently Designated by the City of Pittsburgh
The City currently has six (6) religious properties designated as City Historic Structures and 11 located in City Historic Districts. One City Historic Structure, a church, was demolished in 2000.
a. Shrine of St. Anthony of Padua, 1700 Harpster Street, Troy Hill
City Historic Structureb. John Wesley AME Zion Church, 594 Herron Avenue, Hill District
City Historic Structurec. St. Nicholas Croatian Catholic Church, 1326 E. Ohio Street, East Allegheny
City Historic Structured. Former St. Michael’s Catholic Church and Rectory, 21 Pius Street, South Side Slopes
City Historic Structuree. Greater Faith Tabernacle Church (demolished), 550 N. Homewood Avenue, Homewood
City Historic Structuref. Emmanuel Episcopal Church, 957 West North Avenue, Allegheny West
City Historic Structure, Allegheny West Historic Districtg. Calvary United Methodist Church, Allegheny and Beech Avenues, Allegheny West
City Historic Structure, Allegheny West Historic Districth. Tabernacle Cosmopolitan Baptist Church, 1240 Buena Vista Street, Mexican War Streets
Mexican War Streets Historic Districti. First Baptist Church of Pittsburgh, 159 N. Bellefield Street, Oakland
Oakland Civic Center Historic Districtj. St. Paul’s Cathedral, Fifth Avenue, Oakland
Oakland Civic Center Historic Districtk. Bellefield Presbyterian Church, 4001 Fifth Avenue, Oakland
Oakland Civic Center Historic Districtl. St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Cathedral, 419 Dithridge Street, Oakland
Oakland Civic Center Historic Districtm. Heinz Chapel, Bigelow Boulevard and Fifth Avenue, Oakland
Oakland Civic Center Historic Districtn. New Zion Baptist Church, 1304 Manhattan Street, Manchester
Manchester Historic Districto. Islamic Center of Pittsburgh, 4100 Bigelow Boulevard, Oakland
Schenley Farms Historic District6. Applications to the Historic Review Commission
Since 1977, the Historic Review Commission has received a total of 20 applications for exterior work from owners of designated historic religious properties. Of these, 19 were approved, including two for demolition (one of a church, one of an accessory building); one application (for the installation of aluminum awnings) was denied.
7. Legal Issues
Religious institutions are not exempt from zoning and other local land-use laws, as long as the laws do not threaten the free expression of religion. However, several pieces of legislation at the national, state, and local levels currently limit the amount of regulation that local governments may place on religious institutions. The validity of these new laws is to be decided by the courts.
As it stands, the Pittsburgh Historic Preservation Ordinance is a neutral statute, applying equally to all classes of property and to all property owners. The proposed changes to the ordinance would single out religious properties for unique treatment under the law. The City Law Department is currently conducting a review of the legality of the proposed Council Bill in order to determine if preferential treatment of religious institutions by a city government is valid under the Pennsylvania constitution as well as other federal and state statutes.The following issues must be closely considered in the proposed legislation:
a. Equal Treatment Under the Law
The Pittsburgh Historic Preservation Ordinance establishes that historic preservation is a compelling public interest for its ability to, among other things, “promote the economic and general welfare of the City of Pittsburgh” (City Code, Title 11, 1.1[b]). The Ordinance does not distinguish between classes of persons or properties who share this interest, but provides for a public process by which all citizens may participate in every activity of municipal preservation, from nomination and designation of property to hearings on work applications and economic hardship.
The test of applicability of the ordinance is the historical and/or architectural significance of a structure, district, site, or object, not the financial or other circumstances of an individual property owner or class or property owners.
The proposed bill would single out religious institutions as a distinct class and provide for their preferential treatment under the law. This would benefit the owners of religious properties by making compliance with the Historic Preservation Ordinance optional on their part. Staff urges the Commission to consider whether this would benefit the general public of the City of Pittsburgh, in whose interest the law was created.
b. Existing Relief from Undue Burdens
In speaking publicly about this proposed change, its advocates have spoken about the “burdens” of historic designation and benefits to them of being exempt. Yet there are existing means by which religious property owners may seek relief from the perceived burdens of historic designation.
i. The Historic Designation Process
The designation process itself provides two checks against unwanted designation. First, the Historic Review Commission holds a Preliminary Determination hearing to determine whether a new nomination has merit. This serves as a weeding process for frivolous or inappropriate nominations, and those which do not meet the test have the regulation of the Historic Review Commission lifted for the duration of the process.
Second, a supermajority (six votes) of City Council is required to designate a property over its owner’s objections. Owners of nominated religious properties have the opportunity to argue their position before Council in every case. Although it is not a written rule, Council has generally been reluctant to designate property over an owner’s objections.ii. Certificate of Economic Hardship
An applicant who is denied a Certificate of Appropriateness by the Historic Review Commission for any exterior work may apply for a Certificate of Economic Hardship. If the Historic Review Commission determines that denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness has resulted in loss of all reasonable use and/or return from the property or substantial hardship for the property owner, the Commission will then consult with the Department of City Planning about provision of relief from the economic hardship in the form of loans, grants, tax abatements, transfer of development rights, or other means.iii. Historic Religious Properties Initiative
Funds are available to assist the owners of religious properties with historically appropriate repairs and renovations. Each year, Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation awards between $50,000 and $60,000 in grants to historic religious institutions for bricks and mortar projects. Technical assistance is also awarded to several institutions each year. To qualify, a religious institution must be located in Allegheny County, be at least 50 years old, have an active, though not necessarily large congregation, and be of architectural or historical significance.A nonprofit organization called Partners for Sacred Places performs a similar function on a national level. Grants are also available from the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission.
iv. Tax Exemption
Of course, we must acknowledge that the purpose of tax-exempt status is not to provide a fund for preservation activities. However, freedom from taxation is a costly civic burden of which religious institutions have already been relieved. This suggests that religious institutions do not suffer unduly from obligations which apply equally to the taxed.c. Applications to the Historic Review Commission by Religious Institutions
Historic Review Commission records do not support the claim that historic designation has been a burden on religious property owners.In the 26 years since the first religious structures were designated by the City of Pittsburgh, only one application (for the installation of aluminum awnings) has been denied by the Historic Review Commission, and only one religious building (St. Nicholas Croatian Catholic Church) has been designated over the objections of its owner, the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh.* In 95% of cases before the Historic Review Commission concerning the treatment of religious structures, the applicant and the Commission have been in agreement over preservation methods, materials, and design.
The concerns of religious property owners appear to be about the potential burdens of future applications and nominations. The current Historic Preservation Ordinance provides for fairly resolving these, as they arise, on a case-by-case basis, as shown above.*(Another property, the former St. Michael’s Church and Rectory, also was designated against the wishes of the Catholic Diocese, but since this church was desanctified and not used for religious worship at the time, it would not have been considered a “religious structure” under the definition in the proposed amendment to the Historic Preservation Ordinance. In any case, St. Michael’s is currently being rehabilitated as condominiums by its new owner, with plans that have been approved by the Historic Review Commission.)
8. The staff for the Historic Review Commission and the Planning Commission stated that she did not believe that sufficient evidence exists that the current Historic Preservation Ordinance creates a burden for the owners of religious properties, or interferes with the free expression of religion, to justify the proposed changes to the Ordinance.
Rather, staff finds that the owners of religious properties are treated fairly and equally with other citizens under the ordinance, and the proposed changes would create a remedy for a burden that is imagined, but does not currently exist. The current ordinance provides adequate opportunities for every property owner to seek relief from burdensome Historic Review Commission decisions on a case-by-case basis without providing a blanket exemption for one class of citizens. In addition, assistance is available in the form of loans and grants to the owners of historic religious buildings.
Although exemptions for religious properties from historic preservation regulations do exist in a few other communities, these have been and will continue to be challenged in the courts. By passing the proposed amendments to Pittsburgh’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, the City would be making unnecessary changes to a fair and functional law and opening itself to costly and time-consuming litigation.
As of this date, the required public hearing before Council has not been scheduled. We concur and urge the public to write Council of their concerns regarding this legislation.
-
Historic site: Who decides? – O’Connor ‘optimistic’ about his proposal
By Tom Barnes,
Post-Gazette Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 14, 2003City Councilman Bob O’Connor isn’t letting a little setback with the Historic Review Commission get him down.
Last week, the commission unanimously recommended against a significant change that O’Connor wants to make in the city’s historic preservation ordinance.
O’Connor said the historic review panel’s stance “really doesn’t mean anything” because the final decision is still up to City Council. He said he thinks he has the support he needs to make the preservation ordinance less of a burden on those responsible for churches, synagogues and other religious buildings.
O’Connor said the historic commission’s vote is “just a recommendation to council. It’s nonbinding. I don’t think we expected anything different from them.”
O’Connor will try again today when the proposal comes before the city planning commission, which also will make a recommendation to council on the measure.
Under O’Connor’s revision, only the owner of an actively used religious building would be permitted to nominate it for historic status. Currently, many city officials, preservation groups and anyone who’s lived in the city for at least a year can make such a nomination, which could end up limiting what a church group can do with the exterior or the demolition of a building.
The Pittsburgh Catholic Diocese, which owns St. Nicholas Church on the North Side, was upset when that 100-year-old building was nominated for historic status, which was then approved by City Council. As a result, it’s much harder for the building to be sold to state transportation officials, who plan to raze it in order to widen heavily congested Route 28.
Leaders from across the religious spectrum, including Catholics, Episcopalians, Luth-erans, Orthodox officials and Jewish rabbis, are in favor of O’Connor’s bill.
Historic preservationists oppose it, saying it would weaken city efforts to preserve culturally and architecturally important church buildings.
In cases where the historic panel opposes nomination of a building, it takes a council super-majority of at least six votes to override the panel’s recommendation. But in this case, O’Connor said he just needs the normal five-vote majority of the nine-member council.
After the planning commission takes a stance on O’Connor’s measure, council will hold a public hearing on it and probably vote next month, O’Connor said.
“I’m optimistic it will be approved,” he said. “We feel strongly about this. I want to go ahead with my plan.”
Tom Barnes can be reached at tbarnes@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1548.
This article appeared in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. © Pittsburgh Post Gazette