Sewickley council may face a federal lawsuit if it does not approve the demolition of a former convent known as the Herbst House.
The building is owned by Divine Redeemer Parish and is located along Walnut Street in one of the borough’s historic districts.
Parish attorney Robert Ridge brought up the possibility of seeking legal action through the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act during his closing arguments at an evidentiary hearing on April 29.
The act is designed to “protect individuals, houses of worship, and other religious institutions from discrimination in zoning and landmarking laws,” according to the U.S. Department of Justice.
The hearing — remanded by Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas after Sewickley council denied the demolition in April 2023 — is focused on whether the structure can be salvaged and whether the parish has demonstrated sufficient economic hardship to justify tearing it down. Day one of testimony was March 26.
Borough solicitor Nate Boring and his team are defending the permit denial, stating the parish has not met its economic hardship burden under borough ordinances, and the parish could benefit by selling the property to a third party that could restore it.
Ridge said testimony from experts and parish officials over the course of the two days showed how the property is dilapidated, and the parish has neither the means nor desire to restore the house to its former glory.
He claimed the economic hardship would be the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh renovating the building, and believes there may be more legal debates should a permit not be granted.
“I think the Diocese’s position at that point would be to pursue a RLUIPA claim because we don’t want to renovate this building and it’s not part of our mission,” Ridge said. “The net result of that will be we’ll be in court for quite some time litigating that issue, and that building’s just going to be there the way it is. I’m not threatening you with that. I’m telling you I can’t see the Diocese making any other decision here because they don’t have the money to renovate it. They’re not going to sell it and lose control over what’s in the middle of their campus.”
Sewickley area property developer Rody Nash and Pittsburgh History & Landmark Foundation president Michael Sriprasert both testified April 29 that they made offers to buy the Herbst House. Their purchase proposals would require the parish lot to be subdivided.
Sriprasert said the foundation also made an offer to spend about $2 million for a restoration that would let the parish keep ownership.
That offer would have included tax credits, grants and corporate contributions.
“They were all made in good faith, but none of them will satisfy the needs of the parish,” Ridge said about the offers.
Several structural engineers said they believe the building was salvageable at significant cost, with it possibly taking $4.7 million to restore the house that was built in the late 1800s.
Structural engineer Mark Tayman of Keystone Structural Solutions said the Herbst House roof is in shambles, there is rotted trim around windows, significant water damage in various locations and vegetation is crawling up the sides.
He also said there may be hidden damage in the walls and other sections and renovations would be very costly.
“I think it’s highly likely there’s more than what we are seeing,” Tayman said on April 29.
Architect Lou Bernardi, consultant for MDM Surveyors & Engineers, echoed previous testimony that demolition is necessary and responsible to address public safety, liability concerns and long-term interest of the parish.
Structural engineer John Schneider of Gateway Engineers agreed that the roof does need to be replaced, but argued against demolition.
“I’ve seen worse,” Schneider said.
Compass Real Estate agent Liz Fecko testified that the Herbst House could be sold as-is due to the strong market in the Sewickley area.
“People have no problem trying to repurpose the historic architecture that we have here in Sewickley,” Fecko said.
Boring said the parish potentially benefiting from a sale and preservation efforts go against its economic hardship claims, as do its own plans.
“A proposed demolition for greenspace clearly contravenes the applicable economic hardship standard because it would permanently eliminate a valuable historic asset and replace it with a use that generates no economic return to the parish,” Boring said.
Council members did not comment after the hearing.
No public comment was taken due to the nature of the hearing.
The next step in the process is for both legal teams to submit their proposed finding of facts and conclusions of law to council within 30 days of receiving the hearing transcripts.
Council would then review the materials and vote at an upcoming meeting.
That information will then be filed with the Allegheny County Courts for Judge McGinley to review.
The judge will then determine if it all meets applicable legal standards to support whatever decision council makes.
Either party would have the right to appeal the ruling to Commonwealth Court.