Jump To

Top Caption [Lead Opinion

                  by Wojcik](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10807776/in-re-appeal-of-ka-insurance-agency-v-philadelphia-historical-commission/about:blank#o1)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 12, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

In re: Appeal of K&A Insurance Agency v. Philadelphia Historical Commission ~ Appeal of: K&A Insurance Agency

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 685 C.D. 2024
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Judges: Wojcik

• Opinion

• Authorities (3)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Lead Opinion

                        by Wojcik

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