IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
In re: Appeal of K&A : Insurance Agency : : v. : No. 685 C.D. 2024 : Argued: February 4, 2026 Philadelphia Historical Commission : : Appeal of: K&A Insurance Agency :
BEFORE: HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE WOJCIK FILED: March 12, 2026
K&A Insurance Agency (Landowner) appeals the order of the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas (trial court) denying its appeal of the designation of the house located at 5920 Greene Street in the Germantown area of the City of Philadelphia (Property and City, respectively) as historic, and listing it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places (Register) by the Philadelphia Historical Commission (Commission) under the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (Ordinance).1 We affirm.
1 See The Philadelphia Code, §§14-1001 -- 14-1008. In relevant part, Section 1004(1)(c), (d), and (e) provides the relevant criteria herein for the Property’s designation, stating:
A building, complex of buildings, structure, site, object, or district may be designated for preservation if it: (Footnote continued on next page…) The relevant facts of this case may be summarized as follows. Landowner purchased the Property as an investment property in 2003. On September 9, 2021, the West Central Germantown Neighbors, a local neighborhood association (Association), nominated the Property for historic preservation under the Ordinance without Landowner’s input or knowledge. The Association hired a historian to create a report on the architectural and social history of the Property to present with the nomination. On October 28, 2021, Landowner received the first letter providing notice of the Property’s nomination from the Commission. The letter explained that the Commission would hold two public meetings to consider the nomination before deciding whether the Property would be designated as historic. However, because Landowner requested several consecutive continuances, the matter was not heard until the May 24, 2023 meeting of the Commission’s Designation Committee (Committee), and the Board’s June 9, 2023 meeting culminating in the Property’s historic designation and addition to the Register. At the Committee’s May 24, 2023 meeting, Landowner and its counsel appeared and objected to the historic designation, claiming several financial arguments, limits to the use of its own property, and the interests of the neighbors.
(c) Reflects the environment in an era characterized by a distinctive architectural style; [or]
(d) Embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style or engineering specimen; [or]
(e) Is the work of a designer, architect, landscape architect or designer, or professional engineer whose work has significantly influenced the historical, architectural, economic, social, or cultural development of the City, Commonwealth, or nation.
The Philadelphia Code §14-1004(1)(c), (d) & (e). 2 Landowner also claimed that the property does not meet the qualifications to be considered historic because the Association that made the nomination does not represent the interests of the community. However, the Commission presented meeting minutes and emails showing community support for the historic designation, and noted that Landowner and its counsel were the only opponents. Ultimately, the Committee voted to recommend that the Commission approve the historic designation. Thereafter, on June 9, 2023, the full Commission conducted a meeting to review the nomination and designation of the Property. Quite significantly, neither Landowner nor its counsel were present at this meeting; however, a member of the Commission’s staff informed the Commission of Landowner’s prior objections to the Committee.2 The full Commission unanimously voted to approve the historic designation, as confirmed by the July 11, 2023 letter from the Commission to Landowner. On July 26, 2023, Landowner appealed the Commission’s designation to the trial court. Specifically, Landowner asserted that the Commission erred or abused its discretion in making the decision, and that the Property’s designation was not supported by substantial evidence. On April 25, 2024, following a hearing,3 the trial court denied the appeal. On May 24, 2024, Landowner filed this appeal.
2 The Commission’s minutes of the June 9, 2023 meeting state the following, in relevant part: “No one represented the [Landowner]. [The Commission staff member] noted that the [Landowner] opposed the designation at the Committee on Historic Designation meeting.” Original Record (OR) at 188.
3 The Commission’s counsel stated the following at the June 9, 2023 meeting:
(Footnote continued on next page…) 3 On appeal,4 Landowner claims that the trial court erred in dismissing its appeal because: (1) the Commission failed to adhere to the criteria and standards set forth in the Ordinance; and (2) the Commission’s action in designating the
Again, in terms of the record, after the [Committee] reviewed the matter, they recommended unanimously that the full [C]ommission place it on the [R]egister.
I would note, at the time of the [Committee meeting], [ ] the principal for [Landowner] and [its counsel] did appear. They did speak on the record. They voiced their objections. But there was no report, there was no preservation architect, there was no other information indicating why the nomination was faulty or why the [P]roperty should not be considered for designation. None of that was presented. It was just an objection to it being designated at all.
. . . On June 9, 2023, the full [C]omission held its meeting to consider the designation. At that time, at least based upon the record that we have, neither [ ] the principal for [Landowner] nor [its counsel] appeared, although it was put on the record. So the [C]omission was aware that as far as we understood at the time that they still objected to the designation. So it was understood.
But again, in addition to that non-appearance, no other information had been provided, no documents, no reports, no expert reports, no surveys or anything like that had been presented to the [C]omission.
And in fact the [C]omission voted unanimously in favor of placing the [P]roperty on the [Register], and, as the [C]ertified [R]ecord reflects, there were a number of neighbors who indicated their support for the designation, both in vocalized comments made to the [C]ommittee or [C]omission, or in written comments that were received.
Trial Ct. 4/25/24 Hearing Tr. at 15-17.
4 This Court’s review of the Commission’s designation is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether an error of law was committed, or whether necessary factual findings are supported by substantial evidence. Roomet v. Board of License and Inspection Review, 928 A.2d 1162, 1164 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). 4 Property as historic imposes such substantial and severe limitations on Landowner’s use that it constitutes a taking requiring just compensation. However, we will not reach the merits of Landowner’s claims. As noted by the Commission’s counsel before the trial court, neither Landowner nor its attorney appeared at the Commission’s June 9, 2023 hearing in which the Property was designated as historic. Section 753(a) of the Local Agency Law states:
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
In re: Appeal of K&A : Insurance Agency : : v. : No. 685 C.D. 2024 : Argued: February 4, 2026 Philadelphia Historical Commission : : Appeal of: K&A Insurance Agency :
BEFORE: HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE WOJCIK FILED: March 12, 2026
K&A Insurance Agency (Landowner) appeals the order of the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas (trial court) denying its appeal of the designation of the house located at 5920 Greene Street in the Germantown area of the City of Philadelphia (Property and City, respectively) as historic, and listing it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places (Register) by the Philadelphia Historical Commission (Commission) under the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (Ordinance).1 We affirm.
1 See The Philadelphia Code, §§14-1001 -- 14-1008. In relevant part, Section 1004(1)(c), (d), and (e) provides the relevant criteria herein for the Property’s designation, stating:
A building, complex of buildings, structure, site, object, or district may be designated for preservation if it: (Footnote continued on next page…) The relevant facts of this case may be summarized as follows. Landowner purchased the Property as an investment property in 2003. On September 9, 2021, the West Central Germantown Neighbors, a local neighborhood association (Association), nominated the Property for historic preservation under the Ordinance without Landowner’s input or knowledge. The Association hired a historian to create a report on the architectural and social history of the Property to present with the nomination. On October 28, 2021, Landowner received the first letter providing notice of the Property’s nomination from the Commission. The letter explained that the Commission would hold two public meetings to consider the nomination before deciding whether the Property would be designated as historic. However, because Landowner requested several consecutive continuances, the matter was not heard until the May 24, 2023 meeting of the Commission’s Designation Committee (Committee), and the Board’s June 9, 2023 meeting culminating in the Property’s historic designation and addition to the Register. At the Committee’s May 24, 2023 meeting, Landowner and its counsel appeared and objected to the historic designation, claiming several financial arguments, limits to the use of its own property, and the interests of the neighbors.
(c) Reflects the environment in an era characterized by a distinctive architectural style; [or]
(d) Embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style or engineering specimen; [or]
(e) Is the work of a designer, architect, landscape architect or designer, or professional engineer whose work has significantly influenced the historical, architectural, economic, social, or cultural development of the City, Commonwealth, or nation.
The Philadelphia Code §14-1004(1)(c), (d) & (e). 2 Landowner also claimed that the property does not meet the qualifications to be considered historic because the Association that made the nomination does not represent the interests of the community. However, the Commission presented meeting minutes and emails showing community support for the historic designation, and noted that Landowner and its counsel were the only opponents. Ultimately, the Committee voted to recommend that the Commission approve the historic designation. Thereafter, on June 9, 2023, the full Commission conducted a meeting to review the nomination and designation of the Property. Quite significantly, neither Landowner nor its counsel were present at this meeting; however, a member of the Commission’s staff informed the Commission of Landowner’s prior objections to the Committee.2 The full Commission unanimously voted to approve the historic designation, as confirmed by the July 11, 2023 letter from the Commission to Landowner. On July 26, 2023, Landowner appealed the Commission’s designation to the trial court. Specifically, Landowner asserted that the Commission erred or abused its discretion in making the decision, and that the Property’s designation was not supported by substantial evidence. On April 25, 2024, following a hearing,3 the trial court denied the appeal. On May 24, 2024, Landowner filed this appeal.
2 The Commission’s minutes of the June 9, 2023 meeting state the following, in relevant part: “No one represented the [Landowner]. [The Commission staff member] noted that the [Landowner] opposed the designation at the Committee on Historic Designation meeting.” Original Record (OR) at 188.
3 The Commission’s counsel stated the following at the June 9, 2023 meeting:
(Footnote continued on next page…) 3 On appeal,4 Landowner claims that the trial court erred in dismissing its appeal because: (1) the Commission failed to adhere to the criteria and standards set forth in the Ordinance; and (2) the Commission’s action in designating the
Again, in terms of the record, after the [Committee] reviewed the matter, they recommended unanimously that the full [C]ommission place it on the [R]egister.
I would note, at the time of the [Committee meeting], [ ] the principal for [Landowner] and [its counsel] did appear. They did speak on the record. They voiced their objections. But there was no report, there was no preservation architect, there was no other information indicating why the nomination was faulty or why the [P]roperty should not be considered for designation. None of that was presented. It was just an objection to it being designated at all.
. . . On June 9, 2023, the full [C]omission held its meeting to consider the designation. At that time, at least based upon the record that we have, neither [ ] the principal for [Landowner] nor [its counsel] appeared, although it was put on the record. So the [C]omission was aware that as far as we understood at the time that they still objected to the designation. So it was understood.
But again, in addition to that non-appearance, no other information had been provided, no documents, no reports, no expert reports, no surveys or anything like that had been presented to the [C]omission.
And in fact the [C]omission voted unanimously in favor of placing the [P]roperty on the [Register], and, as the [C]ertified [R]ecord reflects, there were a number of neighbors who indicated their support for the designation, both in vocalized comments made to the [C]ommittee or [C]omission, or in written comments that were received.
Trial Ct. 4/25/24 Hearing Tr. at 15-17.
4 This Court’s review of the Commission’s designation is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether an error of law was committed, or whether necessary factual findings are supported by substantial evidence. Roomet v. Board of License and Inspection Review, 928 A.2d 1162, 1164 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). 4 Property as historic imposes such substantial and severe limitations on Landowner’s use that it constitutes a taking requiring just compensation. However, we will not reach the merits of Landowner’s claims. As noted by the Commission’s counsel before the trial court, neither Landowner nor its attorney appeared at the Commission’s June 9, 2023 hearing in which the Property was designated as historic. Section 753(a) of the Local Agency Law states:
A party who proceeded before a local agency under the terms of a particular statute, home rule charter, or local ordinance or resolution shall not be precluded from questioning the validity of the statute, home rule charter or local ordinance or resolution in the appeal, but if a full and complete record of the proceedings before the agency was made such party may not raise upon appeal any other question not raised before the agency (notwithstanding the fact that the agency may not be competent to resolve such question) unless allowed by the court upon due cause shown. 2 Pa.C.S. §753(a). Because neither Landowner nor its counsel appeared or raised any objections to the designation of the Property as historic before the Commission, any allegation of Commission error in this regard has been waived for purposes of appeal. Id.; Barnes v. Philadelphia Historical Commission, 216 A.3d 590, 593 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019); Roomet v. Board of License and Inspection Review, 928 A.2d 1162, 1165 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007); Korsunsky v. Housing Code Board of Appeals, City of Harrisburg, 660 A.2d 180, 184 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995).5
5 It is well settled that this Court may affirm the trial court’s order on any basis appearing in the record. Feldman v. Lafayette Green Condominium Association, 806 A.2d 497, 502 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002); see also Choe v. From Decision of Philadelphia Board of Revision and Taxes, 251 A.3d 858, 870 n.10 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (“Although the City noted, but did not definitively raise, the waiver issue, ‘an appellate court may sua sponte refuse to address an issue raised on appeal (Footnote continued on next page…) 5 Moreover, to the extent that Landowner has preserved any appellate claims for our review, after reviewing the record, Landowner’s brief, and the law, we conclude that the appellate issues have been ably resolved in the thorough and well-reasoned opinion of Judge Sierra Thomas Street, and affirm on the basis of her opinion in the matter of K&A Insurance Agency v. Philadelphia Historical Commission (C.P. Phila., No. 02782 July Term, 2023, filed January 3, 2025). Accordingly, the trial court’s order is affirmed.
MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
that was not raised and preserved below.’ Lynch v. Dep[artmen]t of Transp[ortation], Bureau of Driver Licensing, 710 A.2d 126, 128 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998).”). 6 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
In re: Appeal of K&A : Insurance Agency : : v. : No. 685 C.D. 2024 : Philadelphia Historical Commission : : Appeal of: K&A Insurance Agency :
ORDER
AND NOW, this 12th day of March, 2026, the order of the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas dated April 26, 2024, is AFFIRMED.
__________________________________ MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge COPIES SENT PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 236(b) D. KELLY 01/03/2025