Court Opinion

ID: 9765314
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:59:36.553416+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:08.218663
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION BY
Judge LEAVITT.
Respectfully, I dissent. Landowner Levi K. Stoltzfus has been lawfully operat*551ing a log processing business on his 67-acre farm for more than 10 years. He intends to convey approximately 46 acres to his brother and to retain the remaining 21 acres. This will require Stoltzfus to move his log processing business a short distance from one portion of the property to another. The majority has characterized as “meritless” and “an absurdity” Stoltzfus’s argument that his log processing business is forestry activity exempt from zoning regulation. The majority finds that a “forestry activity” must take place in a forest, but this is not what the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code1 (MPC) states.
The MPC contains no such limitation on what constitutes a forestry activity. Specifically, Section 603(f) of the MPC provides that:
Zoning ordinances may not unreasonably restrict forestry activities. To encourage maintenance and management of forested or wooded open space and promote the conduct of forestry as a sound and economically viable use of forested land throughout this Commonwealth, forestry activities, including, but not limited to, timber harvesting, shall be a permitted use by right in all zoning districts in every municipality.
53 P.S. § 10603(f) (emphasis added). The MPC defines “forestry” as follows:
[T]he management of forests and tim-berlands when practiced in accordance with accepted silvicultural principles, through developing, cultivating, harvesting, transporting and selling trees for commercial purposes, which does not involve any land development.
Section 107 of the MPC, 53 P.S. § 10107 (emphasis added).
There is nothing in the law requiring that “forestry activities” must take place on forested land. However, the Eden Township Zoning Hearing Board, the trial court and the majority insert that requirement into the MPC. Further, because the words of the statute are clear, the majority has erred by resorting to the rules of statutory construction, which are intended to resolve ambiguities in legislation, not to avoid its plain meaning. See Facchine v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Pure Carbon Co. and PMA Group), 883 A.2d 720, 723 (Pa.Cmwlth.2005) (explaining that when the plain language of a statute is clear and free from ambiguity, the court may not disregard it under the pretext of pursuing the law’s spirit). However, even if doubt existed as to whether the MPC allows forestry activities to be conducted outside of forested land, the law provides that the court should resolve any doubt in favor of the landowner and against any implied extension of restrictions. Header v. Schuylkill County Zoning Hearing Board, 841 A.2d 641, 645 (Pa.Cmwlth.2004).2
Applying the relevant provisions of the MPC as written, Stoltzfus “harvests” trees from other locations, cuts them into logs *552on his property, “sells” them, and then “transports” them from his property to a saw mill for processing. His activities do not involve land development. Stoltzfus is engaged in “forestry activities” as that term is defined in Section 107 of the MPC, 53 P.S. § 10107. Accordingly, I would reverse the determination that Stoltzfus’s log processing business does not qualify as a forestry use.

. Act of July 31, 1968, P.L. 805, as amended, 53 P.S. §§ 10101-11202.

. The majority posits, without explanation, that Stoltzfus’s interpretation of the MPC will produce an absurd result. Presumably the majority found persuasive the Board's suggestion that, under Stoltzfus’s interpretation, a landowner could process logs next to a playground, a school or in a residential neighborhood. Such concerns, if valid, call for a legislative solution in the form of an amendment to the MPC limiting forestry activities to forested land. The Board’s argument also begs the question whether a landowner could process logs from a heavily wooded lot that happens to be located next to a playground, a school or a residential area. The Board also ignores the fact that any permitted use is still subject to other zoning restrictions such as minimum setback, impervious surface and drainage requirements.