IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In re: Appeal of Chestnut Hill : Community Association, Chestnut : Hill Baptist Church, James Bruno, : Maureen Pie

- Bruno, Eileen Sisle, : Kenneth Schotsch, a nd Devon : Cargerry : : v. : No. 1034 C.D. 2022

: Argued: April 9, 2024 City of Philadelphia Zoning Board : of Adjustment and 10 Bethlehem Pike : Property Owner, LLC : : Appeal of: 10 Bethlehem Pike : Property Owner, LLC :
BEFORE: HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK , Judge

HONORABLE STACY WALLACE , Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge

OPINION BY SENIOR JUDGE LEAVITT FILED: June 4, 2024

10 Bethlehem Pike Property Owner, LLC (Owner) appeals an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court) granting the land

use appeal of Chestnut Hill Community Association, Chestnut Hill Baptist Church, James Bruno, Maureen Pie

- Bruno, Eileen Sisle, Ken n eth Schotsch , and Dev on Cargerry ( collectively, Objectors). Specifically , the trial court held that the City of Philadelphia (City) Zoning Board of Adjustment (Zoning Board) erred in affirming
the zoning permit issued to Owner by the City Department of Licenses and Inspections ( Department of L&I) because Owner’s project will not comply with the

street line setbacks required by law

. On appeal, Owner argues that the trial court2

erred in its interpretation of the front yard setback requirements set forth in the Philadelphia Zoning Code

. 1 Upon review, we reverse the trial court. Background
At issue is a corner parcel of land at 10 Bethlehem Pike in the City (Property ), which is located in the Neighborhood Commercial Mixed

- Use

- 2 District (CMX

- 2 District )

. A s a corner lot , the Property fronts on Bethlehem Pike and on Summit Street . Previously operated as a gas station , the Property has been vacant for some time. Owner purchased the Property, demolished the existing structures, and applied for a by

- right zoning permit to construct a 45

- foot

- tall building for
mixed commercial and residential use , as authorized in the CMX

- 2 District

. On April 26, 2021, the Department of L&I issued the zoning permit allowing for

[r] etail sale of food, beverages and groceries from basement th r[ough] first floor with multi

- family household living (thirty

three (33) dwelling units) (five (5) units using green roof bonus (as per [Zoning] Code Section 14

- 602(7) and 14

- 602( 4)(a) [ 8 ] (.C); six (6) units using moderate income density bonus and maximum twenty

- two (22) units allowed as per lot size) from second (2nd) floor through fifth (5 th ) floors with twelve (12) 1A class bicycle spaces in an accessible route and with eight (8) underground parking spaces including with one (1) van accessible space. Reproduced Record at 18a (R.R.__). The zoning permit approved the “size and
location” of the project “as shown in the application.” R.R. 17a.

Objector s appealed to the Zoning Board . Objector s maintained that
Section 14

- 701(1)(c) of the Zoning Code requires a 35

- foot front yard setback along

1 See Philadelphia County, Pa., Zoning Code, as amended (2012) ( Z ONING C ODE ).3

both Bethlehem Pike and Summit Street

. 2 However, Owner’s zoning plans provided
no setback s along either street frontage

.

Objector s argued tha t because the Property is a corner lot facing two streets, it has tw o front yards and two setbacks from the street line

. T he Zoning
Code provides that “[w]here any block frontage on one side of a street is divided into two or more districts, no structure shall be erected nearer to the street line than is permitted under the regulations for the district that covers the largest percentage of the street frontage on that block face .” Z ONING C ODE , § 14

- 701(1)(c) ; R.R. 300a (emphasis added)

. The Property sits on a block that is bounded by Bethlehem Pike, Summit Street, Prospect Avenue, Evergreen Avenue, and Evergreen Place. While
the Bethlehem Pike block frontage lies entirely within the CMX

- 2 District, the Summit Street block frontage is divided into three zoning districts: CMX

- 2, Residential Single

- Family Attached

- 2 ( RSA

- 2 ) , and Residential Single

- Family
Detached

- 1 ( RSD

- 1 ) . The RSD

- 1 District “covers the largest percentage” of the
Summit Street block face , and this district requires a 35

- foot front yard setback

. Z ONING C ODE , §14

- 701(1)(c) ; R.R. 300a

. Objector s argued that under Section 14

- 701(1)(c) , a 35

- foot front yard setback appli ed not only to the Summit Street frontage of the Property but also to the Bethlehem Pike frontage

.

At the hearing, Objectors presented the testimony of J ames Bruno and
Maureen Pie

- Bruno, who live in a house on Summit Street adjacent to the Property

. They opposed the zoning permit because it allowed only a five

- foot side yard setback
from the property line they share with Owner

. Notes of Testimony , 11/30/2021, at 31 (N.T.__); R.R. 160a.

2 Objectors also raised challenges to th e dimension of the project’s roof decks and the project’s outdoor lighting plan. The Zoning Board rejected Objectors’ challenges, and Objectors did not appeal.4 Objectors also presented testimony of Daniel Piotrowski , Board
Chairman of the Chestnut Hill Baptist Church on Bethlehem Pike , located on the
other side of the Property

. Piotrowski testified that the church was founded in 1834
and has been designated a historic building by the City’s His torical Commission

. Piotrowski opposed the issuance of the zoning permit because the church “was built
before th ere was electricity,” and the proposed building “would block the light coming in from the windows.” N.T. 34; R.R. 163a. Piotrowski believed that the appropriate side yard setback was 35 feet , not the 10 feet that was approved.

Owner addressed Objectors’ legal challenge . First, the Property is
located entirely in the CM X

- 2 District , and this district does not require any front yard setback

. Second, the Zoning Code provides that where a property is a corner lot facing two streets , the Planning Commission may designate one street frontage

as the “primary frontage.” Z ONING C ODE , §14

- 701(1)(d)(.4) (.a); R.R. 301a

. Here,

t he Planning Commission has designated Bethlehem Pike as the Property’s primary frontage , and it is governed by the CMX

- 2 District regulations

. In short, the Property was not required to have a front yard set back on either Bethlehem Pike or Summit
Street. Owner presented expert testimony of Janice Woodcock, architect and
former director of the City Planning Commission. Woodcock was engaged by
Owner to investigate Objectors’ legal position and “to determine wheth er

. . . the permits were valid as issued [

. ] ” N.T. 36; R.R. 165a. She explained that the Planning Commission is authorized under the Zoning Code to determine street frontage , and
it did so properly in the instant case

. Woodcock testified that t he Property was located in “a very important commercial corridor in Chestnut Hill ,” which “has to have density in order to take advantage of the infrastructure and transit.” N.T. 39;5

R.R. 168a. She opined that Owner’s project was consistent with the Planning Commission’s polic ies

.

Owner also presented the testimony of Zachary Frankel, its principal , and Sergio Coscia, its project arch itect . Both testified that the Project was designed to comply with all applicable zoning requirements so that Owner would secure a by

right zoning permit.

The Zoning Board denied Objectors’ appeal . In rejecting their setback arguments, the Zoning Board concluded that the Planning Commission properly designat ed Bethlehem Pike as the “primary frontage.” Zoning Board Decision, Conclusion of Law No. 15(iii)

- (iv). B ecause the Property was zoned CMX

- 2 and fronted on Bethlehem Pike, a block where all properties a re in the CMX

- 2 District ,

a “ front yard setback on its Summit Street frontage ” was not required. Id

. , Conclusion of Law No. 15(viii).

Objector s appealed to the trial court , which reviewed the Zoning Board’s decision without receiving additional evidence

. By order of September 13, 2022, the trial court reversed the Zoning Board’s decision.

The trial court agreed with Objectors that u nder Section 14

- 701(1)(c) of the Zoning Code , the setback require ments for the RSD

- 1 District governed
because the majority of the properties in the block facing Summit Street a re located
in the RSD

- 1 District

. Because the Property had more than one street frontage, the
35

- foot front yard setback not only applied to the Property’s frontage on Summit
Street but also on Bethlehem Pike

.

The trial court concluded that the Planning Commission lacked authority to designate Bethlehem Pike as the Property’s primary front age to “purposefully exclude the Property’s existing frontage on Summit Street that had6

been subject to unambiguous Zoning Code restrictions.” Trial Court Op. at 2. Even

so , the Planning Commission’s primary frontage designation c ould not “exclude the reality that there are two street facing frontages to this Property.” Id . at 10. The word “primary” does not mean “only.” Id

. In short, because t he Summit Street frontage encompasse d three separate zoning districts and is predominantly
residential , a 35

- foot front yard setback governed both frontages of the Property.

Owner appeal ed to this Court. 3

Appeal On appeal, Owner raises three issues, which we combine into one for clarity. Owner argues that the trial court erred in its interpretation of the Zoning
Code , which specifies that for corner lots fronting more than one street , t he “ front yard requirements of the zoning district shall apply to those street frontages [

. ] ”
Z ONING C ODE , §14

- 701 (1)(d) ; R.R. 300a (emphasis added). Here, the Property is a
corner lot located in the CMX

- 2 District , and this district does not require any front yard setback. Owner contends that the trial court erred in relying on Section 14

- 701(1)(c) because the “more specific” provision of the Zoning Code , i.e ., Section
14

- 701(1) (d) , governs. It mandates “that corner lots are subject only to the front yard requirements of their zoning district [

. ] ” Owner Brief at 18

.

In further support of its position, Owner observes that to the extent the Zoning Code is unclear, it must be resolved in favor of property owners . Owner Brief at 19 (citing K

ohl v. New Sewickley Township Zoning Hearing Board , 108
A.3d 961 , 968 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015)). Further, the Zoning Board’s interpretation of

3 “ Where the trial court receives no additional evidence on appeal from a zoning hearing board ’ s decision, an appellate court ’ s standard of review is to determine whether the board committed an abuse of discretion or an error of law. ” Harrisburg Gardens, Inc. v. Susquehanna Township Zoning Hearing Board , 981 A.2d 405 , 410 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009).7

the Zoning Code is entitled to deference. 4 I mposition of a residential setback requirement to a commercial ly zoned property makes no sense and would frustrate the City’s intentions with respect to commercial development

. Indeed, the evidence
established that “good urban design practice” requires that commercial buildings not be set back from the ir frontage in order to be “accessible to pedestrians and bring[]
life to the sidewalk [

. ] ” N.T. 73; R.R. 202a. Notably , the owners of the neighboring properties expressed concern only about the side yard setback s , not the front yard
setbacks. In response, Objectors argue that the trial court did not err. The Zoning Board’s interpretation of the Zoning Code cannot be squared with the plain terms of the ordinance and, thus, “carries little weight.” Objectors Brief at 14 (citing Azoulay v. Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment , 194 A.3d 241, 249 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018)). The Zoning Code states that where the “ block frontage on one side of a street is divided into two or more districts, ” “ the regulations for the district that covers the largest percentage of the street frontage on that block face ” govern. Z ON ING C ODE , §14

- 701(1)(c) ; R.R. 300a

. Here, the largest percentage of front age

on the Summit Street block lies in the RSD

- 1 District , and it requires a 35

- foot
setback. Without this zoning requirement, structures will not line up neatly on a block but appear , rather , something like a hair comb with broken teeth

.

Objectors concede that the Planning Commission may designate the primary frontage , but the Property still has two street frontages

. That Bethlehem

4 Owner also challenges the trial court’s assertion that even if the Zoning Board’s determination

on the front yard setback were correct, a remand to the Zoning Board was required to evaluate Objectors’ other challenges to the zoning permit. This was error because Objectors neither argued nor presented evidence on their objections to the roof deck or the outdoor lighting plan before either the Zoning Board or the trial court. Those issues are waived. Objectors do not defend this aspect of the trial court ’s decision.8

Pike is the primary frontage does not exempt the Summit Street frontage from the
front yard setback requirements of Section 14

- 701(1)(c)

.

Objectors direct the Court to Section 14

- 602(4)(a)[3] of the Zoning
Code , titled “Notes for Table 14

- 602

- 2

. ” It states as follows:

[3] In the CMX

- 2 and CMX

- 2.5 districts, in order to promote active uses at the street level, buildings must contain a use other than residential and other than parking along one hundred percent (100%) of the ground floor frontage and within the first 30 ft. of building depth, measured from the front building line. If the property is bounded by two or more streets, only the primary frontages as designated in §14

- 701(1)(d)(.4) (Primary Frontage) shall be subject to this requirement

. Z ONING C ODE , 14

- 602(4)(a)[3] ; R.R. 295a (emphasis added). 5 This provision addresses the ground floor use of a commercial project in the CMX

- 2 District, but it
does not state that a primary frontage designation determines the front yard setback. Accordingly, Objectors contend that the Planning Commission’s authority to designate a primary frontage for properties located in the CMX

- 2 District is “only for the purposes of defining the location of commercial uses; not for the purpose of determining yard depth or setbacks.” Objectors B rief at 41.

5 Objectors’ reliance on Section 14

- 602(4)(a)[3] is somewhat confusing and, in any case, misplaced. Section 14

- 602(4)(a)[3] addresses “ uses allowed in commercial districts” specified in Table 14

- 602

- 2

. Z ONING C ODE , Table 14

- 602

- 2 ; R.R. 295a

- 99a (emphasis added)

. As such , Section 14

- 602(4)(a)[3 ] do es not address the dimensional requirement s for corner lots. The dimensional standards for commercial districts are specified in Table 14

- 701

- 3 under Chapter 14

- 700 of the Zoning Code

. See Z ONING C ODE , Chapter 14

- 700 (“Development Standards”) ; R.R. 330a

- 18a. Table 14

- 701

- 3 is clear that there is no front yard depth requirement in the CMX

- 2 District.9 Analysis As an initial matter, we note that “ [t] he rules of statutory construction apply to ordinances as well as statutes.” In re Holtz , 8 A.3d 374, 378 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). The interpretation of a statute or ordinance presents this Court with a pure question of law, which is generally subject to plenary review. Northampton Area School District v. Zoning Hearing Board of Township of Lehigh , 64 A.3d 1152, 1157 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013)

. The primary objective of statutory interpretation is to determine the intent of the legislation. Section 1921 of the Statutory Construction
Act of 1972 , 1 Pa. C.S. §1921. A statute ’ s plain language generally provides the best indication of legislat ive intent , and, thus, statutory construction begins with
examination of the text itself. Malt Beverages Distributors Association v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board , 918 A.2d 171, 176 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007)

.

With respect to zoning matters, “[u]ndefined terms are given their plain meaning, and any doubt is resolved in favor of the landowner and the least restrictive use of the land.” Caln Nether Co mpany , L.P. v. Board of Supervisors of Thornbury Township , 840 A.2d 484, 491 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). See also Lench v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh , 13 A.3d 576, 579 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) ( ambiguity in the zoning ordinance construed in favor of landowner). A zoning ordinance is ambiguous if the pertinen t provision is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, Adams Outdoor Advertising, L.P. v. Zoning Hearing Board of Smithfield Township , 909 A.2d 469, 483 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006), or when the language
is “ vague, uncertain, or indefinite. ” Barasch v. Pennsylvania Public Utility
Commission , 532 A.2d 325, 332 ( Pa. 1987).

Finally, it is well settled that “a zoning hearing board ’ s interpretation of its own zoning ordinance is entitled to great weight and deference

. . . . Such10

deference is appropriate because a zoning hearing board, as the entity charged with administering a zoning ordinance, possesses knowledge and expertise in interpreting that ordinance.” Risker v. Smith Township Zoning Hearing Board , 886 A.2d 727, 731 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (internal citation omitted)

.

With these principles in mind, we turn to the issue on appeal, which is entirely one of construction of the provisions of the Zoning Code that relate to front yard setback requirements

.

Section 14

- 701(1)(d) of the Zoning Code sets forth the dimensional requirements “ for [ l ] ots with [ m ] ultiple [ s ] treet [ f ] rontages .” Z ONING C ODE , §14

- 701(1)(d) ; R.R. 300a. 6 It states , in pertinent part, as follows :

6 Section 14

- 701 of the Zoning Code , titled “Dimensional Standards,” provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (1) General Provisions. (a) Applicability. All primary and accessory structures must comply with the dimensional standards in this (§14

- 701). These dimensional standards may be further limited or modified by other applicable sections of this Zoning Code. General rules for measurement are in §14

- 20 2 (Rules of Measurement).

. . . . (c) Front Yard Depths for Zone Blocks with More than One Zone. Where any block frontage on one side of a street is divided into two or more districts, no structure shall be erected nearer to the street line than is permitted under the regulations for the district that covers the largest percentage of the street frontage on that block face. (d) Requirements for Lots with Multiple Street Frontages. For a lot fronting on more than one street, each street frontage shall be considered a front. The front yard requirements of the zoning district shall apply to those street frontages and the following side yard, rear yard, and primary frontage requirements shall apply. In all circumstances, the requirements for minimum open area and maximum occupied area remain the same. []11 (.1) Properties Bounded by Two Streets. When a property is bounded by two streets: (.a) That constitute a corner, one of the remaining lot lines shall be deemed a side and the other remaining lot line shall be deemed a rear. Where the determination of side and rear lot lines is necessary for L&I to approve or deny a zoning permit application, the Commission shall determine the side and rear lot lines based on the orientation of the lot, orientation of the primary structure, orientation of the structures on adjacent lots, orientation of structures with frontage on the same blockface, the street type designation of the bounding streets, or any additional criteria stated in the regulations of the Commission for the purposes of clarifying or implementing this determination. (.b) That are opposite each other, the remaining two property lines shall be considered sides and the side yard requirements of the zoning district shall apply to the remaining lot lines. The rear yard requirements of the zoning district shall not apply.

. . . . (.4) Primary Frontage. (.a) When necessary to apply certain provisions of this Zoning Code, properties bounded by two or more streets shall have at least one street frontage designated as a primary frontage by the Commission. (.b) The Commission shall determine which street frontages shall be designated as a primary frontage based on the orientation of the primary structure, the orientation of the structures on adjacent lots, the orientation of other structures with frontage on same block face, the street type designation of the bounding street, or any additional criteria stated in the regulations of the Commission for the purposes of clarifying or implementing this determination. (.c) The primary frontage designation shall only apply to those provisions of this Zoning Code where specified, otherwise the front yard and front setback requirements of this Zoning Code shall apply. Z ONING C ODE , §14

- 701(1) ; R.R. 300a

- 01a (emphasis added).12 F or a lot fronting on more than one street, each street frontage shall be considered a front. The front yard requirements of the zoning district shall apply to those street frontages and the following side yard, rear yard, and primary frontage requirements shall apply.

Z ONING C ODE , §14

- 701 (1)(d) ; R.R. 300a (emphasis added)

. Because t he Property
fronts on two street s , Bethlehem Pike and Summit Street, “each street frontage” is a
“front.” Z ONING C ODE , §14

- 701 (1)(d); R.R. 300a

. The front yard requirements of the zoning district of the “lot fronting on more than one street ” shall apply to those street frontages. Z ONING C ODE , §14

- 701 (1)(d); R.R. 300a. Here, “each street frontage” of the Property is located in t he CMX

- 2 District , and it requires no front yard setback , as the parties concede

. See Z ONING C ODE , Table 14

- 701

- 3 ; R.R. 309a

.

Section 14

- 701(1)(c) , upon which the trial court relied , is titled “ F ront
Y ard D epths for Z one B locks with M ore than O ne Z one

. ” Z ONING C ODE , § 14

- 701(1)(c) ; R.R. 300a

. It states that “[w] here any block frontage on one side of a street is divided into two or more districts, no structure shall be erected nearer to the street line than is permitted under the regulations for the district that covers the largest percentage of the street frontag e on that block face. ” Z ONING C ODE , § 14

- 701(1)(c); R.R. 300a. A “block frontage” is defined as “ [t] he distance along any street line between the nearest streets intersecting it. ” Z ONING C ODE , §14

- 203( 40) ; R.R. 285a

. A “block face” is defined as “ the edge of a block of lots facing a publicly dedicated street and that is located between two intervening streets intersecting the
street in front of the lots. ” Z ONING C ODE , §14

- 203 (39) ; R.R. 284a

.

Section 14

- 701(1)(c) ensures that buildings placed along a street line up with one another for aesthetic harmony. It applies to the “block frontage” on Summit Street but not to Bethlehem Pike , which is governed by a single zoning
district . There is no basis in the Zoning Code for applying the rules f or the Summit13

Street block frontage to a different zone block on Bethlehem Pike

. Each block frontage must be separately evaluated. Stated otherwise, Section 14

- 701(1)(c) cannot be extended from one block frontage, i.e. , Summit Street, to another block frontage, i.e. , Bethlehem Pike. To do so would disturb the lineup of buildings on
Bethlehem Pike.

More importantly , Section 14

- 701(1)(c) has no effect to the extent it
conflict s with Section 14

- 701 (1)(d)

. The latter provision is quite clear that “ a lot fronting on more than one street ” will be subject to the front yard depth requirements
for “the zoning district” in which the lot is located. Z ONING C ODE , §14

- 701 (1)(d) ; R.R. 300a

. Here, t he Property is located in the CMX

- 2 District , which imposes no front yard setback requirements.

Objectors have offered no way to reconcile the two above

- cited provisions of the Zoning Code . Objectors simply ignore Section 14

- 701( 1 )(d)

. Section 1933 of the Statutory Construction Act of 1972 states:

Whenever a general provision in a statute shall be in conflict with a special provision in the same or another statute, the two shall be construed, if possible, so that effect may be given to both. If the conflict between the two provisions is irreconcilable, the special provisions shall prevail and shall be construed as an exception to the general provision, unless the general provision shall be enacted later and it shall be the manifest intention o f the General Assembly that such general provision shall p revail.

1 Pa. C.S. §1933 (emphasis added). In the absence of reconciliation between two legislative provisions , the specific controls the general.

Sectio n 14

- 701(1)(c) is a general provision that applies to multiple lots
located along a block face. By contrast, Section 14

- 701 (1)(d) applies to a single lot,
i.e. , a corner lot that faces two streets. As such, it is a special provision that must be construed as an “exception to the general provision

. ” 1 Pa. C.S. §1933. Section 14

-14

701 (1)(c) governs the dimensional standards for a corner lot and supersedes Section
14

- 701(1)(c )

. 7 As a corner lot located entirely in the CMX

- 2 District, the Property
does not need to have a front yard setback along either Bethlehem Pike or Summit Street. The Board did not err in denying Objectors’ appeal.

Nevertheless, t he Zoning Board’s conclusion that the front yard setback requirements apply only to the primary frontage of the Property designated by the Planning Commission is erroneous

.

Section 14

- 701(1)(d) states that “the following side yard, rear yard, and primary frontage requirements ,” set forth in subsection ( d ) (.1) through ( d ) (.4) , “shall apply” to the “ lot fronting on more than one street.” Z ONING C ODE , §14

- 701(1)(d) ; R.R. 300a

. T he Zoning Code authorizes the Planning Commission , “when necessary to apply certain provisions of this Zoning Code,” to designate “at least one street frontage” as “a primary frontage” for “properties bounded by two or more streets

. ”
Z ONING C ODE , §14

- 701(1)(d) (.4) (.a) ; R.R. 301a

. However, that “primary frontage designation shall only apply to those provisions of this Zoning Code whe re specified [

. ] ” Z ONING C ODE , §14

- 701(1)(d)(. 4 ) (.c) ; R.R. 301a

.

T he Planning Commission ha s the authority to designate primary frontage of a property fronting on more than one street “ [ w ] hen necessary to apply certain provisions of this Zoning Code [

. ] ” Z ONING C ODE , §14

- 701(1)(d)(.4)(.a) ; R.R. 301a (emphasis added)

. However, t he Planning Commission did not identify
those “provisions of this Zoning Code” that necessitated naming Bethlehem Pike a s the primary frontage of the Property

. Objectors argue that , as a result, the Planning

7 Section 14

- 701(1)(d) was enacted by ordinance of December 8, 2015, Bill No. 150766. While Section 14

- 701(1)(c) was amended in March 2021 and again in April 2021, the amendments were not substantive. It is reasonable to infer that the legislative body in tended Section 14

- 701(1)(d) to continue to operate as an exception to the generally applicable requirement set forth in Section 14

- 701(1)(c).15

Commission’s frontage designation did not affect the setback requirements for the Property

. Objectors may be correct , but the issue is irrelevant

. B ecause Section 14

- 701(1)(d) is dispositive , a primary frontage designation was not necessary to resolve the question of what front yard set back is required for the Property.

T he Zoning Board did not err in holding that because the Property is
zoned CMX

- 2 , it does not need to have a front yard setback along either Bethlehem
Pike or Summit Street under Section 14

- 701(1)(d) of the Zoning Code

. The Zoning Board’s conclusion that the front yard setback requirements apply only to the Property’s primary frontage
, as designated by the Planning Commission , lacks support in the language of the Zoning Code . However, it is irrelevant to the outcome of this appeal.
Conclusion

T he Property front s two streets and lies entirely in the CMX

- 2 District

. The Zoning Code is clear that “ a lot fronting on more than one street ” is subject to “[t]he front yard requirements of the zoning district” in which the lot is located.
Z ONING C ODE , §14

- 701 (1)(d) ; R.R. 300a

. We reject Objectors’ argument that
Section 14

- 701(1)(c) has any application to the Property . Section 14

- 701(1)(c) of the Zoning Code is a general provision that ensures that buildings between the
block ’s corners line up in a tidy line

. Section 14

- 701(1)(c) applies generally and
conflicts with Section 14

- 701(1)(d), which is a provision particular to a corner lot

. Because the conflict in these provisions is irreconcilable, the special provision prevails , 1 Pa. C.S. §1933 , an d Section 14

- 701(1)(d) governs the Propert y’s front yard setback.16 For all these reasons, w e hold that the Zoning Board did not err in upholding the issuance of the zoning permit and denying Objectors’ appeal. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s September 13, 2022 , order

.

____________________________________________ MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge Emerita Judge Dumas did not participate in the decision in this case.IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In re: Appeal of Chestnut Hill : Community Association, Chestnut : Hill Baptist Church, James Bruno, : Maureen Pie

- Bruno, Eileen Sisle, : Kenneth Schotsch, and Devon : Cargerry : : v. : No. 1034 C.D. 2022

: City of Philadelphia Zoning Board : of Adjustment and 10 Bethlehem Pike : Property Owner, LLC : : Appeal of: 10 Bethlehem Pike : Property Owner, LLC :

O R D E R AND NOW, this 4th day of June, 2024, the order of the Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, dated September 13, 2022, in the above

captioned matter, is REVERSED.

____________________________________________ MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge Emerita