Jump To

Top Caption [Lead Opinion

                  by Covey](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10807777/in-re-appeal-of-cresheim-valley-realty-co-lp-appeal-of-cresheim-valley/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 Cresheim Valley Realty Co. LP ~ Appeal of: Cresheim Valley Realty Co. LP

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 137 C.D. 2024
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Judges: Covey

• Opinion

• Authorities (5)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (10.3K)

• PDF

Lead Opinion

                        by [Anne E. Covey](https://www.courtlistener.com/person/8201/anne-e-covey/)

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In re: Appeal of Cresheim Valley :
Realty Company LP :
:
Appeal of: Cresheim Valley : No. 137 C.D. 2024
Realty Company LP : Submitted: February 3, 2026

BEFORE: HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge
HONORABLE MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
JUDGE COVEY FILED: March 12, 2026

Cresheim Valley Realty Company LP (Cresheim Valley) appeals from
the Philadelphia County Common Pleas Court’s (trial court) January 16, 2024 order
(entered January 17, 2024)1 affirming the Philadelphia Historical Commission’s
(Commission) April 10, 2023 decision designating Cresheim Valley’s property
located at 7200 Cresheim Road, Philadelphia (City), Pennsylvania (Property) as
historic (Designation) and adding it to the City’s Register of Historic Places
(Register). Cresheim Valley presents three issues for this Court’s review: (1)
whether the trial court erred or abused its discretion by affirming the Commission’s
Designation because it will create an incurable default event under Cresheim
Valley’s mortgage agreement; (2) whether the Designation violated Cresheim
Valley’s due process rights; and (3) whether substantial record evidence supports
the Commission’s determination that the Property satisfied the criteria set forth in

1
The Commission sought judgment, which the trial court entered on February 14, 2024.
Cresheim Valley timely appealed to this Court on February 15, 2024.
former Section 14-1004 of the Philadelphia Code (Preservation Ordinance) for
designation as a historical building.2 After review, this Court affirms.
Cresheim Valley owns the Property. SBG Management Services, Inc.
(SBG) owns Cresheim Valley. Phillip Pulley (Pulley) is SBG’s principal. On
October 18, 2022, the Commission received a Nomination of a Historic Building,
Structure, Site, or Object (Nomination), which Cynthia Dutwin (Dutwin) compiled
on behalf of the West Mount Airy Neighbors Association (Association),
recommending that the Commission designate the Property as historical.3 The
Nomination averred:

The historic resource satisfies the following criteria for
designation . . . :
....
(c) Reflects the environment in an era characterized by a
distinctive architectural style; or,
....
(g) Is part of or related to a square, park[,] or other
distinctive area which should be preserved according to an
historic, cultural[,] or architectural motif; or,
....
(j) Exemplifies the cultural, political, economic, social[,]
or historical heritage of the community.
Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 25.

2
Former Phila. Code § 14-1004 (2023). This is the Preservation Ordinance that was in
effect at the time of the Designation.
3
See Reproduced Record at 24-46. Cresheim Valley did not number the pages of the
Reproduced Record with a small “a” as required by Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure
2173. See Pa.R.A.P. 2173 (providing “the pages of . . . the reproduced record . . . shall be numbered
separately in Arabic figures . . . : thus 1, 2, 3, etc., followed . . . by a small a, thus la, 2a, 3a,
etc. . . .”). This Court’s references to the page numbers herein are consistent with Cresheim
Valley’s Reproduced Record.

2
On December 15, 2022, the Commission informed Cresheim Valley of
its receipt of the Nomination. By January 16, 2023 letter, Pulley notified the
Commission: “[T]he [P]roperty doesn’t have enough income to support the historical
designation or compliance. In addition, [Cresheim Valley is] precluded from
allowing this building to have a historical designation as it would result in a default
under [its] mortgage.” R.R. at 55. On January 18, 2023, the Commission’s
Committee for Historical Designation (Committee) conducted a hearing regarding
the Nomination. Neither Pulley nor any other person appeared at the hearing on
Cresheim Valley’s behalf. Following the conclusion of the hearing, the Committee
unanimously recommended that the Property satisfied the criteria for designation
under former Section 14-1004(1)(c) and (j) of the Preservation Ordinance. The
Commission notified Cresheim Valley of the recommendation.
By February 6, 2023 letter to the Commission, Michael Yanoff, Esquire
(Attorney Yanoff), Cresheim Valley’s counsel, objected to the proposed
Designation, and reiterated the concern that the Designation would violate the terms
of Cresheim Valley’s mortgage, and that SBG lacked sufficient supporting rental
income from the apartment building on the Property. See R.R. at 97. By March 7,
2023 letter to the Commission, Attorney Yanoff, again opposed the Property’s
proposed Designation, and again alleged that the Designation would encumber the
Property in violation of Cresheim Valley’s mortgage.4 See R.R. at 159-160.
On March 10, 2023, the Commission held a public meeting to review
and decide on the Property’s Nomination. The Commission considered the
mortgage default claim and determined that the cited boilerplate language in the
standard mortgage loan would not hinder the Designation. Pulley and Samantha

4
Attorney Yanoff enclosed Cresheim Valley’s (1) Loan Agreement (No encumbrance
provisions), see R.R. at 162-167; (2) Schedule 1 (Permitted Encumbrances definitions), see R.R.
at 168-169; and (3) Security Instrument (Permitted Encumbrances definition). See R.R. at 171.
3
Pulley, Esquire (Attorney Pulley), attended the Commission meeting.5 Upon full
review of all information and after perceiving no substantive challenge to the validity
or appropriateness of the Nomination, the Commission voted unanimously at the end
of the March 10, 2023 meeting to designate the Property as historic and list it on the
Register. The Commission concluded that the Property had satisfied the criteria for
designation under former Section 14-1004(1)(c) and (g) of the Preservation
Ordinance.
Cresheim Valley appealed to the trial court. By January 16, 2024 order
(entered January 17, 2024), the trial court affirmed the Commission’s decision.
Cresheim Valley appealed to this Court.6 On February 23, 2024, the trial court
directed Cresheim Valley to file a Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on
Appeal pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure (Rule) 1925(b) (Rule
1925(b) Statement). Cresheim Valley filed its Rule 1925(b) Statement on March 13,
2024. On November 6, 2024, the trial court filed its opinion.
Preliminarily,

the Commission has expertise given its mandated
composition of specialists in historical, architectural, and
real estate fields. This Court held that given the
Commission’s expertise, its ability to promulgate
regulations, and its authority to administer the
Preservation Ordinance, “the [Commission’s] reasonable
interpretations of the . . . [Preservation] Ordinance are
entitled to deference and that these interpretations
‘become[ ] of controlling weight unless [they are] plainly

5
Only Attorney Yanoff entered his appearance in this matter. However, Attorney Pulley
appeared in person for Cresheim Valley and authored its brief.
6
This Court’s “review in an appeal of a local agency decision, where the trial court has
taken no additional evidence, is whether constitutional rights have been violated, whether an error
of law has been committed, or whether a finding of fact of the agency necessary to support its
adjudication is not supported by substantial evidence.” Meyer v. City of Pittsburgh Hist. Rev.
Comm’n, 201 A.3d 929, 935 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019).

4
erroneous or inconsistent’ with the . . . [Preservation]
Ordinance.” [Turchi v. Phila. Bd. of License & Inspection
Rev., 20 A.3d 586, 594 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011)].

Rector Church Wardens v. City of Phila. Hist. Comm’n, 215 A.3d 1038, 1042 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2019).
Cresheim Valley first argues that the trial court erred or abused its
discretion by affirming the Commission’s Designation because it will create an
incurable default event under the Property’s mortgage agreement and, thus, deprive
Cresheim Valley of the Property’s economic value. Specifically, Cresheim Valley
contends that the Designation will cause a default under Section 1401(c)(1) of the
Multifamily Loan and Security Agreement. The City rejoins that the Commission
and the trial court carefully considered these claims and simply found them to be
without any foundation. The City counters that a designation does not constitute an
encumbrance and, even if it did, that would not preclude the Commission from
designating a property.
Initially, Section 11.02 of the Multifamily Loan and Security
Agreement provides, in relevant part:

(a) Liens; Encumbrances.
[Cresheim Valley] shall not permit the grant, creation,
or existence of any [l]ien, whether voluntary, involuntary,
or by operation of law, on all or any portion of the []
Property (including any voluntary, elective, or non-
compulsory tax lien or assessment pursuant to a voluntary,
elective, or non-compulsory special tax district or similar
regime) other than:
(1) Permitted Encumbrances;
(2) the creation of:
(A) any tax lien, municipal lien, utility lien,
mechanics’ lien, materialmen’s lien, or judgment lien
against the [] Property if bonded off, released of
record, or otherwise remedied to Lender’s
5
satisfaction within sixty (60) days after the earlier of
the date [Cresheim Valley] has actual notice or
constructive notice of the existence of such lien; or
(B) any mechanics’ or materialmen’s liens which
attach automatically under the laws of any
[g]overnmental [a]uthority upon the commencement
of any work upon, or delivery of any materials to, the
[] Property and for which [Cresheim Valley] is not
delinquent in the payment for any such work or
materials; and
(3) the lien created by the Loan Documents.

R.R. at 162-163 (text emphasis added). Section 1401(c) of the Multifamily Loan
and Security Agreement provides: “Events of Default Subject to Extended Cure
Period[:] . . . . (1) any failure by [Cresheim Valley] to perform any of its obligations
under this Loan Agreement or any Loan Document . . . as and when required[.]”
R.R. at 166.
According to the minutes from the January 18, 2023 Committee
hearing, Committee Chair Emily Cooperman (Cooperman) explained:

[T]he Committee received a letter of opposition from the
attorney for [Cresheim Valley], and lamented the fact that
[] Pulley was not in attendance at the meeting.
[Cooperman] noted that [Pulley’s] letter, which is in the
public record, states that a designation would cause
[Pulley] to default on his mortgage. [Cooperman]
commented that she has never experienced anything of
that sort in terms of designation, and would like to
understand more about that assertion, but in the absence of
[Cresheim Valley’s] representative, is not comfortable
commenting on it. [Cooperman] noted that the
Commission will have the opportunity to determine
whether it is in the public interest to designate or not
designate for whatever reason.
[The Commission’s Executive Director Johnathan
E. Farnham, Ph.D.] responded that he is unaware
of any designation resulting in a default on a
mortgage in his 20 years at the [] Commission.

6
R.R. at 83-84.

According to the minutes from its March 10, 2023 meeting, the
Commission made the following findings:

• The [] Commission’s attorney reviewed the mortgage
documents submitted by [Cresheim Valley] and found that
the language about encumbrances is fairly standard boiler-
plate language present in most mortgages.
• Local designation does not constitute an encumbrance.
Encumbrances are interests in [a] property, such as
easements, leases, or ground rents, which local
designation does not create. Local designation is akin to a
zoning change, which would not constitute an
encumbrance.
• [Cresheim Valley’s] assertion that [its] mortgage
company requires the owners to hire various consultants
to respond to the Nomination seems like a
misunderstanding and is likely conflating local
designation with National Register designation or a façade
easement, both of which are separate and different
processes. National Register designation is often a
prerequisite for historic preservation tax credits and
requires owner consent as well as extensive
documentation by a preservation consultant.
• [Cresheim Valley] can speak directly with the []
Commission’s staff to understand the implications of
[D]esignation without hiring a consultant.
• The [P]roperty’s mortgage language does not impact or
bind the [] Commission’s decision making.

R.R. at 249. Given that neither Pulley, Attorney Pulley, Attorney Yanoff, nor any
other person appeared to represent Cresheim Valley at the January 18, 2023
Committee hearing to present evidence that its lender considers a designation an
encumbrance constituting a mortgage default, and there is nothing in the former
Preservation Ordinance or the Commission’s Rules and Regulations suggesting that
the Property’s mortgage language impacts or binds the Commission, this Court

7
cannot conclude that the trial court erred or abused its discretion by affirming the
Commission’s Designation based on the Property’s mortgage agreement.
Cresheim Valley next argues that the Designation violated Cresheim
Valley’s due process rights by denying it a meaningful opportunity to be heard prior
to imposing the Designation. The City rejoins that because Cresheim Valley did not
raise a due process deprivation claim below, it failed to preserve it and, thus, waived
it. The City further retorts that even if Cresheim Valley preserved a due process
claim, the designation of a property over an owner’s objections does not constitute
a due process violation.
Preliminarily, “[i]t is without question that the right to a due process
hearing, like most constitutional rights, can be waived.” Germantown Cab Co. v.
Phila. Parking Auth., 134 A.3d 1115, 1120 n.7 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (quoting Pa.
Bankers Ass’n v. Pa. Dep’t of Banking, 962 A.2d 609, 622 (Pa. 2008)). Further,
“[i]ssues not raised in the trial court are waived and cannot be raised on appeal.”
Riccio v. Newtown Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 308 A.3d 928, 940 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2024). Here, Cresheim Valley did not raise its due process claim during oral
argument or in its brief before the trial court. Indeed, Cresheim Valley raised that
argument for the first time in its Rule 1925(b) Statement.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has declared:

[A] Rule 1925(b) [S]tatement cannot resurrect an
otherwise untimely claim or objection. Because issues not
raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised
for the first time on appeal, a [Rule] 1925(b) [S]tatement
can therefore never be used to raise a claim in the first
instance. Pa.R.A.P. 302. Pennsylvania law is clear that
claims and objections that are not timely made are waived.

Steiner v. Markel, 968 A.2d 1253, 1257 (Pa. 2009) (citations and footnote omitted).

8
Accordingly, Cresheim Valley waived its due process claim.7
Cresheim Valley next argues that substantial record evidence does not
support the Commission’s determination that the Property satisfied the criteria set
forth in former Section 14-1004 of the Preservation Ordinance for designation as a
historical building. The City rejoins that substantial evidence in the record supports
the Designation of the Property under former Section 14-1004(1)(c) and (j) of the
Preservation Ordinance.
Former Section 14-1004 of the Preservation Ordinance provides, in
relevant part:

(1) Criteria for Designation.
A building, complex of buildings, structure, site, object, or
district may be designated for preservation if it:
....
(c) Reflects the environment in an era characterized by a
distinctive architectural style; [or]
....
(j) Exemplifies the cultural, political, economic, social, or
historical heritage of the community.

Former Phila. Code § 14-1004 (2023).8
According to the minutes from the January 18, 2023 Committee hearing
on the Nomination:

• [Nominator] Dutwin noted that there is significant
support for the [N]omination from the residents of the
apartment building. She opined that the architecture
7
Notwithstanding, this Court agrees with the City that a Designation over an owner’s
objection does not constitute a due process violation. Here, although Cresheim Valley wrote letters
declining the Nomination/Designation and its reasons therefor, it did not appear at the Committee
meeting on the Nomination after being notified thereof.
8
See https://www.phila.gov/media/20240611102556/historic-preservation-ordinance-
Nov-16-2023.pdf (last visited March 11, 2026).
9
complements the surrounding homes and is a cherished
landmark in the neighborhood.
• [Committee Member Debbie] Miller noted that she is a
resident of Northwest Philadelphia and is familiar with
this building and others that are similar across that portion
of the [C]ity. She commented that this and similar
buildings are prominent elements of the landscape in the
West Mount Airy neighborhood and noted that the style is
used throughout the immediate neighborhood and the
broader Northwest Philadelphia.
....
• [Committee Member Suzanna] Barucco supported the
[N]omination. She noted that she lives along the Main
Line, and that it is fascinating to see the quality of
architecture and apartment buildings built around railroad
stations. She opined that [the Property] [is] a great
example in the Tudor style. She lamented the loss of the
brick patio area in front of the building but opined that it
does not detract from the character of the building, which
still expresses its architectural significance.
• [] Cooperman commented that the [N]omination
explains an interesting pattern of development that
characterized the area, which was a notable contrast to the
pattern of development pursued by the Houstons and
Woodwards in the Northwest.[9] She noted she could only
think of one apartment building built by Samuel Houston.
She explained that apartment buildings such as this one,
which are largely Tudor in style or occasionally Colonial
Revival, are a considerable component of the character of
the Northwest section of Philadelphia and its subsequent
development. She noted that she has experienced this
building over her lifetime and remarked on how well it fits

9
In [Mount] Airy during the late 19th and early 20th centur[ies,]
developers such as Herman Wendel and Walter Bassett Smith,
Henry Houston, and George Woodward were building homes to
accommodate the suburban living style newly created by the
development and expansion of the Philadelphia, Germantown[, and]
Norristown Railroad away from the urban center.
R.R. at 34 (Nomination) (emphasis added).
10
into the streetscape and forms the streetscape around the
Allen Lane station.

R.R. at 83.
The minutes from the January 18, 2023 Committee hearing also
reflected the following public comments:

• David Traub [(Traub)] of Save Our Sites supported the
[N]omination. He noted that the building is large but is
broken into more residential segments with three separate
entries. He commented that the square bays at the fourth
floor capped with gables gives the building a home-like
feel and opined that the [P]roperty deserves designation.
• Sherman Aronson, an architect and resident of West
Mount Airy, commented that he is impressed by the
building, its history, and design. He noted that the design
breaks the large form into smaller forms that are in
keeping with the neighborhood and remarked on the Tudor
Revival style and Neo-classical entries as consistent with
the surrounding area. He noted that the [P]roperty is
representative of a period of development in the [C]ity in
which the railroad and economic factors allowed people to
move to areas outside the [C]ity[’s] center but to get there
easily by train. Apartments such as this one provided, and
still provide, affordable housing.
• Steven Peitzman [(Peitzman)] supported the
[N]omination, and designation of similar apartment
buildings more generally, noting that there is a wonderful
cluster near the Queen Lane station as well. He
commented that, although Philadelphia is often thought of
as a city of homes, there are also important apartment
buildings throughout the [C]ity.
• [The Architectural Historian of the Keeping Society of
Philadelphia,] Oscar Beisert[,] supported the
[N]omination.
R.R. at 84.

11
Also according to the minutes from the January 18, 2023 Committee
hearing, the Committee found that “[the Property] w[as] constructed in 1914[,]” and
concluded, in pertinent part:

• The [P]roperty reflects the environment in an era
characterized by the Tudor Revival style as applied to low-
rise apartment buildings, satisfying [c]riterion [1][c] [of
the Preservation Ordinance].
• The [P]roperty exemplifies the railroad-led economic
and historic transformation of Northwest Philadelphia in
the early decades of the [20th] century, satisfying
[c]riterion [1][j] [of the Preservation Ordinance].

Id. Based thereon, the Committee “voted to recommend that the [N]omination
demonstrates that the [P]roperty . . . satisfies Criteria for Designation [1][c] and [j]
[of the former Preservation Ordinance] and should be designated as historic and
listed on the [Register].” Id.
According to the minutes from the March 10, 2023 Commission
meeting:

• [Linda] DiPasquale presented the [N]omination to the []
Commission.
• [] Dutwin of [the Association] represented the
[N]omination.
• Attorney [] Pulley and [] Pulley represented [Cresheim
Valley] and opposed the [D]esignation, arguing that the
[D]esignation would constitute an encumbrance and
violate their mortgage agreement.
....
• [] Traub of Save Our Sites supported the [N]omination.
• [] Peitzman supported the [N]omination.
• Neighbor Adrienne Carpenter supported the
[N]omination.

12
R.R. at 249.
The Commission concluded, in relevant part:

• The [P]roperty reflects the environment in an era
characterized by the Tudor Revival style as applied to low-
rise apartment buildings, satisfying [c]riterion [1][c] [of
the former Preservation Ordinance].
• The [P]roperty exemplifies the railroad-led economic
and historic transformation of Northwest Philadelphia in
the early decades of the twentieth century, satisfying
[c]riterion [1][j] [of the former Preservation Ordinance].

Id. Based on the above, substantial record evidence supports the Commission’s
determination that the Property satisfied the criteria in former Section 14-1004(1)(c)
and (j) of the Preservation Ordinance.
“Applying a deferential standard here, [as required, this Court]
uphold[s] the Commission’s [D]esignation of [the Property] as a historic place.”
Rector Church Wardens, 215 A.3d at 1043. Accordingly, the trial court’s order is
affirmed.

---

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

13
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In re: Appeal of Cresheim Valley :
Realty Company LP :
:
Appeal of: Cresheim Valley : No. 137 C.D. 2024
Realty Company LP :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 12th day of March, 2026, the Philadelphia County
Common Pleas Court’s January 16, 2024 order (entered January 17, 2024) is
affirmed.

---

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge