appealable to the CAB. It submits that Appellants did not challenge in the lower tribunals the propriety of the charter amendment procedure adopted by the Commonwealth Court in Northside Urban Pathways or the standard by which an amendment request should be evaluated. Thus, Discovery contends, to the extent this Court granted allocatur on those issues, we should dismiss them as improvidently granted. Appellants refute Discovery’s claim of waiver on the ground that they had no burden of issue preservation in the lower tribunals as they were the respondents before the CAB and the appellees in the Commonwealth Court. We agree with Appellants and conclude that all three issues are properly before this Court for review. See Commonwealth v. McMullen, 599 Pa. 435, 961 A.2d 842, 846 n.2 (2008) (<HOLDING>). 11 . Discovery additionally contends that
holding that issues not raised in the trial court may not be raised later on appeal holding that a reviewing court will not address those issues not raised below or not addressed by the trial court holding that issues not raised before a district court are waived on appeal holding that issues not raised before the trial court cannot be raised on appeal holding that the general rule that issues not raised in the lower court may not be addressed on appeal applies only to appellants