Opinion ID: 2736580
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: 3d 1018, 1030 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2011).

Text: 5 The court of common pleas had also found that NSE's appeal of the validity of the PRD Ordinance was frivolous and was filed for the purpose of delaying BPG's development of its land. The trial court accordingly had granted BPG's motion requiring NSE to post a bond. Newtown Square East, L.P. v. Zoning Hearing Board of Newtown Township, No. 10-4799, Opinion and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Ct.Com.Pleas, filed 1/25/11). However, the Commonwealth Court reversed this portion of the trial court’s decision. Newtown Square East, L.P. v. Zoning Hearing Board of Newtown Township, 38 A.3d at 1029-30. [J-58A-C-2013] - 6 Township of Newtown, 38 A.3d 1008, 1013-17 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2011). NSE then sought allowance of appeal to this Court. We granted NSE’s petitions for allowance of appeal, limited to the following three issues: 1. Did the Commonwealth Court err in interpreting the MPC as authorizing a developer’s Tentative Plan to designate the use of buildings by generic designation only as “residential” or “nonresidential” so as to effectively negate the MPC’s due process safeguards requiring notice and a public hearing and thereby deny due process to the public and neighboring property owners? 2. Did the Commonwealth Court err in adopting a novel interpretation of MPC Section 707(4)(iv) that has no basis in the law, that conflicts with the meaning of the term “use” throughout the MPC, and that conflicts with this Court’s decision in Eves v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 164 A.2d 7 (Pa. 1960)? 3. Did the Commonwealth Court err in holding that the Tentative Plan complies with the PRD Ordinance and the MPC when the Tentative Plan fails to reveal the use of buildings, as required by a valid PRD Ordinance and by the MPC? Newtown Square East, L.P. v. Zoning Hearing Board of Newtown Township, 64 A.3d 624, 625 (Pa. 2013); Newtown Square East, L.P. v. Township of Newtown, 64 A.3d 625 Pa. 2013). A zoning ordinance is presumed valid, and a challenger must carry the heavy burden to prove otherwise. Township of Exeter v. Zoning Hearing Board of Exeter Township, 962 A.2d 653, 660 (Pa. 2009); Upper Salford Township v. Collins, 669 A.2d 335, 336 (Pa. 1995). To the extent that NSE’s issues before this Court rest on interpretation of the MPC, they present a question of law for which our standard of [J-58A-C-2013] - 7 review is de novo and our scope is plenary. Newman Development Group of Pottstown, LLC v. Genuardi’s Family Markets, Inc., 52 A.3d 1233, 1239 (Pa. 2012); Dechert LLP v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 998 A.2d 575, 579 (Pa. 2010). The object of all interpretation and construction of statutes is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the General Assembly. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(a). The best indicator of the legislature’s intent is the statute’s plain language. Dechert, supra. Words and phrases are to be construed according to their common and approved usage. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1903(a). When the words of a statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(b). However, when the words of the statute are not explicit, the General Assembly’s intent may be ascertained by considering, inter alia, the object to be attained by the statute and the consequences of a particular interpretation. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(c). We presume that the General Assembly does not intend a result that is absurd or unreasonable, but does intend for the entire statute to be effective and certain. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1922. A local governing body is properly afforded deference in interpreting its own zoning ordinance. Broussard v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Pittsburgh, 907 A.2d 494, 500 (Pa. 2006); Aldridge v. Jackson Township, 983 A.2d 247, 254 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2009). Our appellate review of the zoning ordinance at issue is limited to determining whether the local governing body abused its discretion or committed an error of law. Broussard, supra at 498; Upper Salford Township v. Collins, supra at 337; Ligo v. Slippery Rock Township, 936 A.2d 1236, 1241 n.5 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2007); Kang, supra at 327 n.7. MPC Several portions of the MPC are relevant to our analysis, beginning with the MPC’s definition of a PRD, as follows: [J-58A-C-2013] - 8 “Planned residential development,” an area of land, controlled by a landowner, to be developed as a single entity for a number of dwelling units, or combination of residential and nonresidential uses, the development plan for which does not correspond in lot size, bulk, type of dwelling, or use, density, or intensity, lot coverage and required open space to the regulations established in any one district created, from time to time, under the provisions of a municipal zoning ordinance. 53 P.S. § 10107 (Definitions). As set forth in the MPC Article VII (Planned Residential Development), the purposes of a PRD include, most relevantly, the following: H to encourage innovations in residential and nonresidential development and renewal so that the growing demand for housing and other development may be met by greater variety in type, design and layout of dwellings and other buildings and structures and by the conservation and more efficient use of open space ancillary to said dwellings and uses; H to provide a procedure which can relate the type, design and layout of residential and nonresidential development to the particular site and the particular demand for housing existing at the time of development H and to insure that the increased flexibility of regulations over land development authorized herein is carried out under such administrative standards and procedures as shall encourage the disposition of proposals for land development without undue delay H . 53 P.S. § 10701 (emphases added). Section 10702 grants the governing body of each municipality the authority to set forth the standards, conditions, and regulations for a PRD, as well as the procedures pertaining to the application for, hearing on, and tentative and final approval of a PRD, all of which must be consistent with the provisions of Article VII. The standards, conditions, and regulations most relevant to the instant case include the following: [J-58A-C-2013] - 9 (b) The provisions adopted pursuant to [Article VII] shall set forth the uses permitted in a planned residential development, which uses may include but shall not be limited to: (1) Dwelling units of any dwelling type or configuration, or any combination thereof. (2) Those nonresidential uses deemed to be appropriate for incorporation in the design of the [PRD]. 53 P.S. § 10705(b) (Standards and conditions for planned residential development). Section 10707 sets forth the requirements for an application for tentative approval of a PRD, which in relevant part are as follows: § 10707. Application for tentative approval of planned residential development In order to provide an expeditious method for processing a development plan for a planned residential development under the provisions adopted pursuant to the power granted herein, and to avoid the delay and uncertainty which would arise if it were necessary to secure approval, by a multiplicity of local procedures, of a plat of subdivision as well as approval of a change in the zoning regulations otherwise applicable to the property, it is hereby declared to be in the public interest that all procedures with respect to the approval or disapproval of a development plan for a planned residential development and the continuing administration thereof shall be consistent with the following provisions: (1) An application for tentative approval of the development plan for a planned residential development shall be filed by or on behalf of the landowner.