[ J - 89 - 2018 ] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT SAYLOR, C.J., BAER, TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, JJ.

IN RE: APPEAL OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF CHELTENHAM TOWNSHIP FROM THE DECISION DATED DECEMBER 16, 2015, OF THE ZONING HEARING BOARD OF CHELTENHAM TOWNSHIP

APPEAL OF: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF CHELTENHAM TOWNSHIP : : : : : : : : : : : No. 3 MAP 2018 Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court at No. 1317 CD 2016 dated July 6, 2017 Affirming the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Civil Division, at No. 2016

- 00752, dated July 7, 2016 and exited July 11, 2016. ARGUED: December 4, 2018

O PINION

JUSTICE BAER DECIDED: July 17, 2019 S ubs ection 508(4)(i) of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), 53 P.S. § 10508(4)(i), precludes a municipality from changing its “zoning, subdivision or other governing ordinance or plan” subsequent to the filing of a land development application and then applying the new version of any of these municipal enactments to the then

- pending application . In this appeal, we are tasked with determining whether S ubs ection 508(4 )(i)’s protection of pending land development applications filed with a municipality’s governing body extends to zoning applications submitted to its zoning hearing board that are : (1) related to the land development application , and (2) filed with the zon ing hearing board during the pendency of the land development application and after an adverse zoning change. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that S ubs ection 508(4)(i)’s protection does extend to zoning application s under these circumstances.[J

- 89

- 2018]

- 2

Be cause the Commonwealth Court reached the same conclusion, we affirm the order of that court.
I. Legal Background A. Introduction The MPC grants many powers to municipalities, including the authority to regulate : (1) subdivision and land development throug h the enactment of a subdivision and land develo pment ordinance (SALDO) , 53 P.S. § 10501 , and (2) land use through the
enactment of zoning ordinances, id. § 10601. As explained further below, p art and parcel of a municipality’s ability to regulate in this regard is the authority of a municipality’s governing body or planning agency to approv e or deny applications submitted to it for approval of “plats,” or subdivision and land development plans, under the municipality’s SALDO, and the authority of a municipality’s zoning hearing board to approve or deny applications submitted to it for certain zoning relief pursuant to the municipality’s zoning ordinances

. 1 While the processes for land development approval and zoning approval

are distinct from each other , there are instances where a landowner needs to obtain both types of approval in order to d evelop his property as desired. T his case presents us with one of tho se instances. Accordingly, and for purposes of facilitating a better under standing of the issue before us, we begin with a brief summary of the law governing each process as is relevant to the current dispute

. 2

1 The MPC defines a “plat” as “the map or plan of a subdivision or land development, whether preliminary or final.” 53 P.S. § 10107. We use the terms “plan” and “plat” interchangeably throughout this Opinion.

2 As discussed infra , t his case specifically concerns: (1) a land development plan submitted to a municipality’s governi ng body for approval, and (2) a subsequently

- filed applicat ion for zoning relief in the form of special exceptions submitted to the municipality’s zoning hearing board. Thus, to the extent the MPC and local ordinance provisions at issue here refer to subdivision plans, planning agency approval, and other zoning r elief irrelevant to the issue before us , those references have been omitted for clarity.[J

- 89

- 2018]

- 3 B. Land Development
T he MPC mandates that a municipality’s SALDO require that all land development plans for land “ situated within the municipality

... be submitted for approval to the governing body.” Id. § 10501. The MPC also provides that a municipality’s SALDO may include provisions concerning the specifications for, and submittal and processing of, land development plans, including “provisions for preliminary and final approval and for processing of final approval b y stages or sections of development.” Id. § 10503(1). Additionally, pursuant to the MPC, the municipality’s governing body has exclusi ve jurisdiction to render final adjudications on all land development applications submitted for approval pursuant to Section 508 of the MPC , discussed below

. Id. § 10909.1 (b)(2)

. In outlining the provisions regarding ap proval of land development applic ations , Section 508 provides information relating to, inter alia , the time and manner in which a municipality ’s governing body must render a decision on a land development application , as well as the effect of ordinance changes on a land development applic ation

. Most rel e vant to this appeal , Section 508 provides: (4) Changes in the ordinance shall affect plats as follows: (i) From the time an application for approval of a plat, whether preliminary or final, is duly filed as provided in the subdivision and land development ordinance, and while such application is pending approval or disapproval, no change or amendment of the zoning, subdivision or other governing ordinance or plan shall affect the decision on such application adversely to the applicant a nd the applicant shall be entitled to a decision in accordance with the provisions of the governing ordinances or plans as they stood at the time the application was duly filed. In addition, when a preliminary application has been duly approved, the applic ant shall be entitled to final approval in accordance with the terms of the approved preliminary application as hereinafter provided. However, if an application is properly and finally denied, any subsequent application shall be subject to the intervening change in governing regulations.[J

- 89

- 2018]

- 4

Id. § 10508(4)(i)

. Pursuant to the MPC’s authorization, Cheltenham Township , the municipality involved in the dispute here, has a SALDO , known as the “Cheltenham Township Subdivision Code of 1974” ( Subdivision Code ). With respect to land development plans,
t he Subdivision Code includes a rticles pertaining to, inter alia , “Design Standards , ” “Plan Requirements , ” and “Plan Processing Procedures .” C HELTENHAM T OWNSHIP , P A ., S UBDIVISION C ODE OF 1974 ch. 260, Articles III

- V

. Most relevant to this appeal, the Subdivision Code requires submission of a “tentative sketch plan ” when , as here, the proposed land development “equals or exceeds eight (8) dwelling units or five (5) acres of land or when the plan includes nonresidenti al development. ” I d. § 260

- 35(A.). Sect ion
260

- 35 further outlines the tentative sketch plan requirements and provides that the processing procedures for the tentative sketch plan are identical to those used for submission of preliminary land development plans. Id. § 260

- 35. Additionally, w ith respect to land development plans generally , the Subdivision Cod e mandates that any plan must meet the requirements of Cheltenham Township’s zoning ordinance, discussed below, “ unless

... special exceptions have been granted by” the Cheltenham Township Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB). I d

. § 260

- 31. C. Zoning The MPC provides that , in enacting zoning ordinances regulating the use of land, a municipality may include “provisions for special exceptions.” 3 53 P.S. § 10603(c)(1). The MPC further requires every municipality that enacts a zoning ordinance to create a zonin g hearing board, which has exclusive jurisdiction to render final adjudications on applications for speci al exception s. Id. § § 10901 , 10909.1(a) (6). The MPC also includes

3 “[A] special exception ... is a use which is expressly permitted in a given zone so long as certain conditions detailed in the ordinance are found to exist.” Brouss ard v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh , 907 A.2d 494, 499 (Pa. 2006).[J

- 89

- 2018]

- 5

a provision addressing the effect of ordinance changes on an application for a special exception , when the subject matter of that application would ultimately constitute land development. That provision, Section 917 of the MPC, provides that when an application for special exception has been filed with the zoni ng hearing board, and the subject matter of such application would ultimately constitute

... a land development as defined in section 107

... no change or amendment of the zoning, subdivision or other governing ordinance or plans shall affect the decision on s uch application adversely to the applicant, and the applicant shall be entitled to a decision in accordance with the provisions of the governing ordinances or plans as they stood at the time the application was duly filed. Provided, further, should such an application be approved by

... the zoning hearing board

... applicant shall be entitled to proceed with the submission of

... land development

... plans within a period of six months or longer as may be approved by

... the zoning hearing board

... following the date of such approval in accordance with the provisions of the governing ordinances or plans as they stood at the time the application was duly filed before

... the zoning hearing board

.... If

... a land development

... plan is so filed within said period, such plan s hall be subject to the provisions of section 508(1) through (4) and specifically to the time limitations of section 508(4) which shall commence as of the date of filing such land development ... plan.
Id. § 10917 (footnotes omitted). Pursuant to the MPC, Ch eltenham Township also has a zoning ordinance, known as the “Zoning Code.” Relevant to this appeal, on February 26, 2008, the Cheltenham Township Board of Commissioners (Comm issioners) enacted an ordinance amending the Zoning Code to create an age

- restric ted overlay district in the township (the “2008 Zoning Ordinance”) . The 2008 Zoning Ordinance permitted age

- restricted housing and clubhouse uses by special exception. See C HELTENHAM T OWNSHIP , P A ., Z ONING C ODE ch. 295, § 295

- 242(B.) (1), (3) (2008). As will be discussed infra , Developer initially sought to develop its property at the time the 2008 Zoning Ordinance was in effect. S ubsequently, on July 21, 2010, the Commissioners enacted an ordinance amending the Zoning Code[J

- 89

- 2018]

- 6

to repeal the age

- restricte d overlay district created by the 2008 Zoning Ordinance in its entirety. No age

- restricted overlay district existed in the township until the Commissioners enacted an ordinance on February 15, 2012, which created a new age

- restricted overlay district in the township (the “ 2012 Zoning Ordinance ” ). While the 2012 Zoning Ordinance also permitted age

- restricted housing and clubhouse uses by special exception, see C HELTENHAM T OWNSHIP , P A ., Z ONING C ODE ch. 295, § 295

- 242(B.) (1), (3) (2012), it contained more stringent dimensional criteria than the 2008 Zoning Ordinance

. As explained in detail below, i t is the Commissioners’ enactment of the 2012 Zoning Ordinance that has spurred the dispute in this matter.

II. Factual Background and Procedural History Having set forth the stat e and local law relevant to this matter , we now proceed with a d iscussion of the pertinent facts and procedural history

. Hansen

- Lloyd, L.P. , ( Developer ) owns a large tract of land, approximately 10 acres of which are located in Cheltenham Township, and approximately 33 acres of which are located in Springfield Township. O n the acreage located in Cheltenham Township (Property) , Developer sought to build a n age - restricted housing development consisting of 8 buildings that were 4 stories high , 388 parking spaces, and a clubhouse

. Thus , under the Subdivision Code ( i.e., Cheltenham Township’s SALDO), Developer was required to su bmit a tentative sketch plan fo r the development to the Commissioners for approval. See C HELTENHAM T OWNSHIP , P A ., S UBDIVISION C ODE OF 1974 ch. 260, § 260

- 35(A.) ( requiring the submission of a “tentative sketch plan” for proposed developments that “equal[] or exceed[] eight (8) dwelling units or five (5) acres of land or when the plan incl udes nonresidential development ” ).[J

- 89

- 2018]

- 7

O n December 23, 2008, D eveloper submitted its mandatory tentative sketch plan (2008 Sketch Plan) to the Commissioners , who acknowledged receipt of th e p lan through the township engineer by letter dated January 14, 2009. 4 At the time, t he 2008 Zoning Ordinance permitting age

- restricted housing and clubhouse uses by special exception was in effect

. Consequently , the January 2009 lette r notified Developer that a preliminary analysis of the 2008 S ketch P lan revealed that , inter alia , Developer would need to obtain zoning relief in the form of a special exception for the age - restricted housing use

. Thereafter , Developer and the Commissioners entered negotiat ions that spanned
years regarding development of the Proper ty , including the possibility of incorporating the Property and the contiguous acreage located in adjacent Springfield Township that Developer also owned into one community

. During these lengthy negotiations, the Commissioners and Developer agreed to approximately 40 extensions of time for the Commissioners to review Developer’s 2008 S ketch P lan

. See generally Section 508 of the MPC, 53 P.S. § 10 508 ( prescribing the time in w hich a governing body must act upon

an a pplication for approval of a land development plan such as the 2008 Sketch Plan and providing that a n applicant can agree in writing to an extension of time )

. To date, the 2008 Sketch P lan is still pending with the Commissioners

. 5

4 “There is no question that Developer’s age

- restricted development constitutes land development and that its sketch plan was a preliminary land development plan.” Bd

. of Comm ’ rs of Cheltenham T w p

. v. Hansen

- Lloyd, L.P. , 166 A.3d 496, 503 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017).

5 I n early June 2015, Developer and the Commissioners agreed to an indefinite extension of time for consideration of the 2008 S ketch P lan “until 60 days from the da te of the final decision of the [instant] zoning case including all appeals,” provided that either party could “end the indefinite extension up on 60 days advanced written notice to the other party.” Developer’s ZHB Exhibit No. 29; see also Commissione r s ’ Brief at 17, 24 n.14, 43 (explaining that the Commissioners have not reviewed the 2008 Sketch Plan); Commissioners’ Reply Brief at 6, 11 (explaining that, “[t] o date, [Developer] has never sought to proceed w ith review of the [ 2008 S]ketch [P ]lan, [which] has been pending since[J

- 89

- 2018]

- 8

Eventually, the negotiations between Developer and the Commissioners concerning alternate plans for the Property failed. Developer thus sought to move forward on its originally proposed age

- restricted housing development set forth in the 2008 S ketch
P lan that remained pending before the Commissioners

. Accordingly , in May 2015 , Developer filed a zoning app lication (the 2015 Zoning Application) with the ZHB for the zoning relief it required to construct the age

- restricted housing development on the Property

. As is pertinent here , wh ile the 2012 Zoning Ordinance had re placed the 2008 Zoning Ordinance by this time , Developer sought special exception s to permit the age restricted housing and clubhouse uses under the 2008 Zoning Ordinance in effect at the time it filed its 2008 Sketch Plan

. The ZHB held several hearings , during the course of which the parties disputed the proper ordinance to apply in reviewing Developer’s 2015 Z oning A pplication. As indicated above, Developer ar gued in favor of applying the 2008 Zoning O rdinance , which was in effect at the time Developer filed its 2008 S ketch P lan that remained pending before the Commissione rs . Developer took the position that the 2008 Zoning Ordinance controlled pursuant to S ubs ection 508(4)(i) of the MPC, because no change in the zoning ordinance can adversely affect a pending land development plan. In contrast, the Commissioners argued in favor of applying the 2012 Zoning O rdi nance, which was in effect at the time Develope r filed its 2015 Zoning Ap plication before the ZHB

. The Commissioners claimed that the 2012 Zoning Ordinance governed pursuant to Section 917 of the MPC, which prevents zoning changes from adversely affecting the decision on a pending zoning application a nd entitles the applicant to a decision based on the ordinances in effect at the time the zoning application is filed

. As noted , a determination

December 2008 , ” and that the 2008 Sketch P lan has been pending for approximately 10 years)

.[J

- 89

- 2018]

- 9

as to which ordinance applied was critical to the ZHB’s decision on the 2015 Z oning
A pplication, as the parties stipulated that Developer’s zoning requests would not satisfy the more stringent special exception criteria under the 2012 Zoning Ordinance.
T he ZHB concluded that the 2008 Zoning Ordinance governed its review of the 2015 Zoning A pplication , which it ultimately granted

. In reaching its conclusion, the ZHB found S ubs ection 508(4)(i) of the MPC to be “clear and controlling

. ” 6 ZHB Decision, 1/28/2016, at 11. Notwithstanding that it was rendering a decision on Developer’s 2015
Z oning A pplication, and not the 2008 S ketch P lan that remained pending before the Commissioners , t he ZHB explained that it was clear from the record that the 2008 Sketch
P lan and the plan filed in conjunction with the 2015 Z oning A pplication were the same

. As such, the ZHB posited, D eveloper was not trying to “bait and switch” the Commissioners or ZHB by seeking relief based on a plan filed with the 2015 Zoning Application that differ ed from the 2008 S ketch P lan

. Id. In other words, Developer sought zoning relief incident to and necessary for its pending land development application. In response to the Commissioners ’ argument, t he ZHB concluded that Section 917 of the MPC was inapplicable to the matter before it. 7 T he ZHB explained that Section 917 applie s where an applicant chooses to file its zoning application first, followed by the

6 As previously explained, S ubsection 5 08(4)(i) of the MPC, set forth supra at page 3, protects pending applications for approval of a land d evelopment plan such as the 2008 Sketch Plan from changes made to , inter alia , a municipality’s zoning ordinance that would adversely affect the governing body’s decision on that land development application.

7 Again, Section 917, set forth supra at page 5, protects pending special exception applications, the subject matter of which would ultimately constitute land development (such as the 2015 Zoning Application), from changes made to a municipality’s zoning ordinance after the filing of the zoning appli cation that would adversely affect a zoning hearing board’s decision on that application. It then provi des the process by which a developer can proceed with its land development plan following approval of the zoning application and still receive protectio n from adverse zoning changes

.[J

- 89

- 2018]

- 10

submission of a land development application once a decision on its zoning application is made. Id. a t 12 (positing further that Section 917 was included in the MPC to prote ct the applicant who “chooses to obtain zoning relief with regard to its proposed use before going to the expense of filing full

- blown land development

... plans”)

. The ZHB reasoned that, here, Developer chose to file its 2008 S ketch P lan prior to filing its 2015 Z oning
A pplication . Thus, according to the ZHB, S ubs ection 508(4)(i) of the MPC applied , and pursuant to that subsection, the 2008 Zoning Ordinance governed Developer’s 2015
Z oning A pplication

. The Commissioners appealed to th e trial court, whi ch affirmed the decision of the ZHB without taking additional evidence. In adding to the rationale advanced by the ZHB, the trial court accepted that it is the filing of the “plan,” whether done so in conjunction
with either the land development applicati on or the zoning application, and not the filing of the respective applications themselves , that vests a developer’s right to develop its
prope rty in accordance with the zoning ordinance in effect at the time the “ plan ” is filed. Trial Court 1925(a ) Opinio n, 11/3/2016, at 5

. The trial court posited that the law clearly permitted a developer to obtain “vesting rights” by filing either a land development application or a zoning application, and that because Developer chose to file its 2008 Sketch Plan first, it obtained vesting rights , inter alia , in the 2008 Zoning Ordinance. Id.
at 6. The Commissioners then appealed to the Commonwealth Court , reiterating their
po sition that the 2012 Zoning Ordinance govern ed Developer’s 20 15 Zo ning A pplication pursuant to Section 917 of the MPC because the 2012 Zoning O rdinance was in effect at the time the 2015 Z oning A pplication was filed . The Commissioners argued that holding that the 2008 Zoning Ordinance applied under S ubs ection 508(4)(i) of the MPC rendered Section 917 mere surplusage

. The Commissioners claimed that it was more logical to[J

- 89

- 2018]

- 11

interpret S ubs ection 508(4)(i) as applying only to land development applicati ons that do not require special exception approval , which would give meaningful effect to both Subsection 508(4)(i) and Section 917

. The Commissioner s also argued that, while the
2008 Zoning Ordinanc e governed Developer’s pending 2008 S ketch P lan, the ext ensions of time given for the Commissioners’ consideration of the 2008 S ketch P lan did not extend the applicability of the 2008 Zoning Ordinance to the 2015 Z oning A pplication. According to the Commissioners , Developer should have sought zoning approval f or the use of the Property before seeking approval for the land development. In a published, unanimous decision, a three

- judge panel of the Commonwealth Court affirmed , concluding that the 2008 Zoning O rdinance governed Developer’s 2015 Z oning A pplication

. Bd

. of Comm ’r

s of Cheltenham T

w p

. v. Hansen

- Lloyd, L.P. , 166 A.3d 496 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017). The Commonwealth Court observed that the language in Subsection 508(4)(i) was clear and unambiguous in that no zoning change or amendment can adversely affect a pending land development application such as the 2008 Sketch Plan and that, “[s]o long as a land development application is pending, the applicant is entitled to a decision in accordance with the provisions of the governing [zoning] ordinances

... a s they stood at the time the application was duly filed.” Id. at 505. The court further explained that, w hile S ubs ection 508(4) (i) clearly protects a land development application such as the 2008 Sketch Plan from future adverse zoning ordinance changes , the question in this case was whether “this protection extends to
later

- filed zoning applications ” such as the 2015 Zoning Application. Id. at 503. Observing that its case law did not directly address the issue, t he court concluded that Subsection 50 8(4)(i)’s “ protection naturally extends to decisions regarding zoning relief where such relief is a necessary part of the land development plan.” Id. at 505. In so doing, t he Commonwealth Cour t rejected the Commissioners’ claims that this[J

- 89

- 2018]

- 12

interpretation of S ubs ection 508(4) (i) render ed S ection 917 mere surplusage and create d an inherent con flict between Subsection 508(4)(i) and Section 917

. Having previously explained that “Section 917 permits an applicant, whose plans will culminate in land development[ ,] ... to seek zoning relief first and still receive protection from subsequent amendments for any future

- filed ... land development plan,” t he court posited that both Subsection 508(4)(i) and Section 917 “ can be reasonably interpreted depending on wh ich appli cation is filed first.” Id. at 504

- 05. The Court thus explained that S ubs ection 508(4) (i) applies when an applicant first files a land development application , and Section 917 applies if an applicant first files an application for zoning relief. The c our t reasoned that this result gave meaning to both provisions

. Turning to the facts of this case, the Commonwealth Court stated that the Subdivision Code ( i.e. , Cheltenham Township’s SALDO) required that Developer submit a sketch plan and that the sketch plan meet the requirements of the Zoning Code unless special exceptions have been granted by the ZHB

. Id. (quoting S ubs ection 260

- 35 (A.) of the Subdivision Code, supra at page 4 (outlining the circumstances in which a ten tative sketch plan is required); a nd Section 260

- 31 of the Subdivision Code , also supra at page
4 ( requiring land development plan s to meet the requirements of the Zoning Code unless special exceptions have been granted by th e ZHB ) )

. The c ourt further noted that the 2008 Zoning Ordinance was in effect at the time Developer submitted , and the township engineer accepted , the 2008 Sketch Pl an , and that a preliminary analysis of the 2008 Sketch Plan revealed that D eveloper would need to obtain zoning relief in the form of a special exception f or the development under the 2008 Zoning Ordinance.
T he Commonwealth C ourt stated that, w hile Developer did not ultimately seek zoning relief until May 2015, its 2008 S ketch P lan was still pending before the Commissioners at that time. The c ourt observed that Developer needed zoning relief to[J

- 89

- 2018]

- 13

proceed with its land development as originally proposed in the 2008 Sketch Plan and that S ubs ection 508(4) (i) of the MPC prot ects land development applications from adverse zoning changes. Id. Thus, a s Developer stipulated that its zoning requests would not meet the special exception criteria under the 2012 Zoning O rdinance, the c ourt concluded that the change in the zoning law would have adversely affected Developer’s pending 2008 Sketch Plan

. T he c ourt continue d by observing that to hold that S ubs ection 508(4) (i) ’s protection applie s only to land development applications , and not zoning applications, would eviscerate that “protection by enabling municipalities to change zoning ordinances upon receipt of any undesired land development plans to thwart approval” and “require applicant s to request zoning relief first before seeking

... land development approval, as opposed to providing applicants a choi ce regarding how to proceed.” Id. at 50 5

- 0 6. The

c ourt further explained that requesting zoning relief would be an unnecessary step in instances where a governing body does not approve the land development application

. Thus, the court held that the ZHB pro perly determined that the 2008 Zoning O rdinance governed Developer’s zoning application pursuant to S ubs ection 508(4)(i) of the MPC. III. Issue This Court granted discretionary review to answer the following question, as posed by the Commissioners : “ Did the Commonwealth Court overlook the express language of 53 P.S. [§] 10917 by holding that a zoning application for special exception is governed by an ordinance other than the ordinance in effect when the zoning application was filed?” In re Bd

. of Co mm ’ rs of Cheltenham T w p

. , 179 A.3d 1079 (Pa. 2018) ( per curiam ). The question presented is one of law, as it requires us to engage in statutory interpretation

. Thomas Jefferson Univ. Hosps., Inc. v. Pa. Dep’t of Labor & Indus. , 162 A.3d 384, 389[J

- 89

- 2018]

- 14

(Pa. 201 7 ). Accordingly , our standard of review is de novo , and our scope of review is plenary. Id

. IV. Analysis We are guided in our analysis by the Statutory Construction Act, 1 Pa.C.S

. §§ 1501

- 1991, which directs us to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the General
A ssembly. Id. § 1921(a). “It is axiomatic that the best indication of legislative intent is the plain language of the statute.” Doe v. Franklin C nty

. , 174 A.3d 593, 605 (Pa. 2017). When the words of a statute are clear and unambiguous , we may not look beyond the statutory language to discern its meaning “ under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.” Thomas Jefferson Univ

. Hosps

. , Inc. , 162 A.3d at 389 (quoting 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(b) )

. Thus , it is only when the statute is ambiguous that we r esort to consideration of the various factors listed in S ubs ection 1921 (c) of the Statutory Construction Act for purposes of discerning the Legislature’ s intent

. Brewingto n ex rel

. B rewington v. City of Philadelphia , 199 A.3d 348, 355 (Pa. 2018). Lastly, we are mindful that every statute is to be read so as “to give effect to all its provisions.” 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(a). As indicated above, the Commissioners take the position that Developer’s 2015 Z oning A pplication is governed by the provisions of the 2012 Zoning Ordinance pursuant to Section 917 of the MPC. The Commissioners offer a plethora of arguments in support of their position, a majority of which are rooted in statutory constructio n principles and track the ir arguments made before the Commonwealth Court

. T he Commissioners
maint ain that both S ubs ection 508(4) (i) and Section 917 are clear and unambiguous with respect to the manner in which they apply and the protections they offer

. 8 Specifically, the Commissioners argue that S ubs ection 508(4) (i) refers only to land development

8 The Commissioners also claim that, to the extent the statutory language at issue is ambiguous, various statutory construction pr inciples support their position.[J

- 89

- 2018]

- 15

applications , not to any associated zoning applications, and thus protects only land development applications from subsequent adverse ordinance changes. The Commissioners further argue that, on the other hand , Section 917 refers to zoning applications (the subject matter of which would ultimatel y constitute land development ) and land development applications , and, if followed, protects both applications from subsequent adverse ordinance changes. 9
The Commissioners further contend that the lower tribunals ignored the express language of Section 917 under the pretext of pursuing the spirit of S ubs ection 508 (4) (i)

. Indeed, the Commissioners cr iticize the Commonwealth Court’s observation that S ubs ection 508(4) (i) ’s protection “naturally extends to decisions regarding zoning relief where such relief is a necessary part of the land development plan” as being “facile” and legally unsupported. Comm issioners’ Brief at 15 (quoting Bd . of Comm’ rs of Cheltenham
T w p

. , 166 A.3d at 505) (emphasis omitted)

. The Commissioners argue that the lower tribunals failed to place any weight on the distinction s between land development application procedures and zoning application procedures , and that the Commonwealth Court’s holding risks blurring the boundaries between the two to the detriment of the public interest

. In support of its contrary position that the 2008 Zoning Ordinance governs its 2015 Z oning A pplication, Developer reiterates much of the reasoning offered by the tribunals below. In so doing, Developer claims that both S ubs ection 508(4) (i) and Section 917
recogn ize that the filing of either a land development application or a zoning application

“ vests the plan with the zoning ordinance in effect at the time of filing ” and, thus, “ vesting rights ” may be obtained by filing either application

. Developer’s Brief at 16, 26. Developer

9 The Commissioners thus argue that applicants can fully protect their property interests against subsequent zoning changes by filing their zoning applications prior to , or at least simultaneously with , their land development applications

.[J

- 89

- 2018]

- 16

contends that there is no requirement in the M PC or otherwise that an applicant file both applications simultaneously or seek zoning approval prior to obtaining approval of a land development plan to obtain vesting rights in an existing ordinance. Developer argues that, b ecause it filed its 2008 Sket ch Plan first, its righ ts vested in the 2008 Zoning Ordinance pursuant to S ubs ection 508(4) (i) of the MPC

. Additionally, Developer argues that the Commonwealth Court did not overlook Section 917 as the Commissioners claim, but rather read that section t ogether with S ubs ection 508(4) (i) in correctly holding that Developer ’s submission of its land development application vested its rights to develop the Property under the 2008 Zoning O rdinance pursuant to S ubs ection 508(4) (i)

. Developer contends that it is the Commissioners who o verlook the plain language of Subs ection 508(4) (i) protecting pending land development applications from adverse ordinance changes , which protection “ ‘ naturally extends ’ t o decisions regarding zoning relief where [that ] relief is a necessary part of the land development plan. ” Id. at 17

- 18 (quoting Bd

. of Comm ’ rs of Cheltenham T

w p

. , 166 A.3d at 505). 10 With regard to Section 917, Developer echoes the Commonwealth Court’s observation that “Section 917 permits an applicant, whos e plans will culminate in land development[,] ... to seek zoning relief first and still receive protection from subsequent amendments for any future

- filed ... land development plan.” Id. at 15 (quoting Bd. of Comm’rs of Cheltenham Twp. , 166 A.3d at 504)). Developer further challenges the Commissioners’ claim that the Commonwealth Court’s decision will erode the boundaries between land development proceedings and

10 Developer notes that this Court has recogniz ed that the purpose of S ubs ection 508(4) is to grant the developer immunity from changes in zoning and planning laws for the duration of a development project, which Developer claims regularly entails the pursuit of zoning relief “ during the pendency of the plan, ” and to protect the developer from changes brought about by the governing body during the pendency of applications for approval. Developer’s Brief at 16 (relying upon Meadows of Hanover Dev

. , Inc . v. B d

. of Supervisors of South Hanover T

w p

. , 734 A.2d 854, 857 (Pa. 1999)).[J

- 89

- 2018]

- 17

zoning proceedings, as Developer has never claimed that it was free from obtaining special excep tion approval. Developer also reiterates its position that an applicant has two ways in which it can receive protection for its proposed development from subsequent adverse ordinance changes: commence the development process by filing a land development p lan under S ubs ection 508(4)(i), or begin by filing a zoning application under Section 917. Developer argues that this case concerns the MPC’s protection against the very conduct of the Commissioners at issue her e, where an ordinance is passed with the aim of preventing a proposed pending development. As stated previously, the language of S ubs ection 508(4) (i) of the MPC relevant to the issue before us provides that, while a duly

- filed land development application is pending, “no change or amendment of the zoning

... ordinance ... shall affect the decision on such application adversely to the applicant and the applicant shall be entitled to a decision in accordance with the provisions of the governing ordinances ... as they stood at the time the application wa s duly filed.” 53 P.S. § 10508(4)(i). The relevant language of Section 917 parallels that of S ubs ection 508(4)(i) by providing that while an application for a special ex ception related to land development i s pending , “ no change or amendment of the zoning ... ordinance ... shall affect the decision on such application adversely to the applicant, and the applicant shall be entitled to a decision in accordance with the provisions of the governing ordinances

... as they stood at the time the application was duly fi led.” 53 P.S. § 10917.
T he above language of Subsection 508(4)(i) and Section 917 clearly provide s the

sam e type of protection for a proposed development project . Spec ifically, both provisions protect pending applications (land development applications under Subsection 508(4)(i) and zoning applications under Section 917) that are filed in relation to a development project from zoning change s that are made during the pendency of the respective[J

- 89

- 2018]

- 18

application and would adver sely affect the decisi on on the respective application

. Importantly, neither Subsection 508(4)(i) nor Section 917 requires submission of one application before the other, and t he parties do not cite, nor have we uncovered, any provision of the MPC, Subdivision Code, or Zoning Code that imposes such a requirement

. Thus, Developer was free to begin the development process with the filing of either a land development application under Section 508 of the MPC, or a zoning application under Section 917 of the MPC. Developer chose t o file its lan d development application , i.e. the 2008 Sketch Plan, first under S ection 508 of the MPC. The 2008 Zoning Ordinance was in effect a t the time Developer submitted the 2008 Sketch Plan. Thus, p ursuan t to Subsection 508(4)(i) , Developer is entitled to a decision on the 2008 Sketch Plan in accordance with the 2008 Zoning Ordinance as long as the 2008 Sketch Plan remains pending. As explained above, the 2008 Sketch Plan has remained pending for years, during which : (1) the 2012 Zoning Ordina nce replaced the 2008 Zoning Ordinance , and (2) Developer filed its related
201 5 Z oning A pplication. As observed by the Commonwealth Court, the replacement of the 2008 Zoning Ordinance with the 2012 Zoning Ordinance constituted a zoning change that was ad verse to Developer’s 2008 Sketch Plan , as the parties stipulated that Developer’s zoning requests do not meet the criteria under the 2012 Zoning Ordinance for a special exception, two of which are needed for the proposed development

. Thus, the protection offered by S ubs ection 508(4)(i) shields Developer’s 2008 Sketch Plan from disapproval by the Commissioners based on the 2012 Zoning Ordinance. As for whether S ubs ection 508(4)(i)’s protection extends to Developer’s 2015 Zoning Application, we observe that , while it does not dictate the order in which land development applications and zoning applications are to be filed , the Subdivision Code ( again , Cheltenham Township’s SALDO) does require that Developer’s 2008 Sketch Plan[J

- 89

- 2018]

- 19

comply with the Zoning Code unless the ZHB has granted special exceptions. Here, Developer needs zoning relief in the form of special exceptions for its proposed age

restricted housing and clubhouse uses depicted in the pending 2008 Sketch Plan

. Under th ese circumstances, where “zoning relief is a necessary part of the land development plan,” w e agree w ith the Commonwealth Court that Section 508(4)(i)’s protection of pending land development plans extends to the decisions o n the requested zoning relief

ne eded for purposes of land development plan approval

. In so doing, we further agree with the Commonwealth Court that to hold otherwise would enable a municipality to disapprove a pending land development plan based on a zoning change adverse to the land de velopment plan in contravention of the protection offered by S ubs ection 508(4)(i). For instance, it is undisputed that Developer’s zoning requests do not mee t the special exception criteria of the 2012 Zoning Ordinance

. Thus, if the 2012 Zoning Ordinance were to apply to the 2015 Zoning Application here, the 2015 Zoning Application would be denied. Without the special exceptions, Developer’s 2008 Sketch Plan would also be denied pursuant to Section 260

- 31 of the Subdivision Code. Thus, the denial of the 2008 Sketch Plan would be based on a zoning change adverse to the 2008 Sketch Plan that was made during the pendency of 2008 Sketch Plan , which is prohibited by S ubs ection 508(4)(i) of the MPC. 11 Based on the foregoing , we hold that the Commonwealth Court did not err when it held that the 2008 Zoning Ordinance governed Developer’s 2015 Zoning Application by

11 Section 917 is not in tension with our holding. As the Commonwealth Court explained, Section 917 provides an alternative method by which a developer can begin the development process and remain shielded from adverse zoning am endments. Specifically, Section 917 permits the developer “to seek zoning relief first and still receive protection from subsequent amendments for any future

- filed ... land development plan.” Bd. of Comm’rs of Cheltenham Twp. , 166 A.3d at 504. Our interpr etation of S ubs ection 508(4)(i) permi ts the developer to seek land development approval first and receive that same protection for f uture

- filed zoning applications. Thus, like the Commonwealth Court, we perceive no conflict between the two provisions in l ight of this interpretation.[J

- 89

- 2018]

- 20

way of extension of S ubs ection 508(4)(i)’s protection of pending land development plans from adverse zoning changes . Thus, we affirm the order of the Commonwealth Court. Chief Justice Saylor and Justices Donohue and Dougherty join the opinion. Justice Wecht files a dissenting opinion in which Justice Todd joins. Justice Mundy did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.