ShareThis Page
Lawsuit challenges bid for historic status for Bloomfield church |

Lawsuit challenges bid for historic status for Bloomfield church

Steven Adams | Trib Total Media
Albright Community United Methodist Church in Shadyside, Saturday, September 19, 2015.
Steven Adams | Trib Total Media
Albright Community United Methodist Church in Shadyside, Saturday, September 19, 2015.
Steven Adams | Trib Total Media
Albright Community United Methodist Church in Shadyside, Saturday, September 19, 2015.
Steven Adams | Trib Total Media
Albright Community United Methodist Church in Shadyside, Saturday, September 19, 2015.

A Methodist church conference is suing Pittsburgh and a preservation group, claiming they are jeopardizing the sale of a flood-damaged Bloomfield church by attempting to have it designated a historic structure.

The Western Pennsylvania Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, which represents about 800 churches in 23 counties, filed a lawsuit on Tuesday in Allegheny County seeking to void a Historic Review Commission vote that recommended historic landmark status for Albright United Methodist Church. It names the city, Friendship Community Group, a civic organization, and six Pittsburgh residents as defendants.

“Essentially, they’re sort of seizing our property illegally,” said Mt. Lebanon attorney David J. Barton, who represents the conference.

Pittsburgh Planning Director Ray Gastil, whose department includes the Historic Preservation Commission, said he is confident the church is eligible for and merits historic designation.

Tim McNulty, spokesman for Mayor Bill Peduto, declined to comment, citing the lawsuit.

“I’m disappointed that the Western Pennsylvania Annual Conference has chosen this (strategy),” said Abass Kamara of Friendship, who is named in the suit.

The lawsuit argues that the conference owns the church on South Graham Street and holds religious activities there.

It contends Historic Review Commission members violated a city preservation ordinance March 2 by unanimously recommending the church be designated as a historic landmark. The designation is subject to City Council approval.

The church, which has numerous stained-glass windows, was built in 1906 and designed by Pittsburgh architect Chancey W. Hodgden. It is widely regarded as a prime example of the Richardsonian-Romanesque and Gothic Revival style.

The lawsuit, filed in the Court of Common Pleas, says six residents and the Friendship Community Group illegally nominated the building for historic preservation by claiming it is vacant.

A city ordinance requires an owner’s consent to nominate a religious structure. Preservationists successfully argued that it was not required in Albright’s case because the church is vacant and no longer a religious building, according to the lawsuit.

Barton said the historic recommendation has blocked the church sale to East Liberty-based Ross Development Co. for more than $1 million. The money, he said, was intended to be used for conference programs that aid needy Pittsburghers.

Ross intended to demolish the building to make way for a Starbucks coffee shop with a drive-thru.

Under city code, buildings nominated or designated as historic cannot be demolished or altered externally without city consent.

The lawsuit also names Tim Sergi of Bloomfield and Kamara’s sister, Taafoi Kamara, Jessica Duell, Thomas Mangan and Jennifer Haven, all of Friendship.

Sergi declined to comment. Taafoi Kamara was unavailable, according to her brother. Duell, Mangan, Haven and the Friendship group could not be reached.

Bob Bauder is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-765-2312 or [email protected].

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.