Court Opinion

ID: 9753521
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:17:07.59556+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:37.250044
License: Public Domain

Justice SAYLOR,
concurring.
I agree with the lead Justices that there is a difference between infrastructure and aesthetics. See Opinion Announcing the Judgment of the Court (“OAJC”), at 568-70, 28 A.3d at 1265-66. I would merely note, however, that some of the concerns raised by Appellant regarding the construction on Appellees’ property were of the former type.1 In any event, here, I believe we are confronted with the different question of what constitutes a “recreational cabin” under the Uniform Construction Code.
In this regard, I support Mr. Justice Baer’s position that the conception is ambiguous and should be understood to incorporate rational limits. See Concurring Opinion, at 578-83, 28 A.3d at 1271-74 (Baer, J.). Nevertheless, I do not support the hunting-and-fishing nexus which Justice Baer favors, since such language appeared in early bills on the subject, but the Legislature acted to remove it in the political process.2 In any event, I agree with Appellant (and Justice *572Baer) that the recreational-cabin conception should not be applied so broadly as to authorize the construction of a substandard structure in a secondary home planned community. On this point, I believe that divorcing the definition of “recreational cabin” from the mainstream concept of a “cabin” — in terms of both design and location — leads to unreasonable results. It seems to me that the General Assembly’s objective was merely to avoid unduly burdening citizens erecting rustic cabins in appropriate venues.
The separate estoppel question, upon which this case may also turn, is one of lesser public importance. This appears to be evidenced by the minimalistic treatment accorded it in the lead opinion (in which the elements of the doctrine are not set forth or discussed). See OAJC, at 570, 28 A.3d at 1266. On the other hand, the substantial public importance of the question of what constitutes a recreational cabin is particularly great, in light of the Commonwealth Court’s published opinion suggesting a very broad application of the exception. See Indian Rocks Prop. Owners Ass’n, Inc. of Ledgedale v. Glatfelter, 950 A.2d 1093, 1099-1100 (Pa.Cmwlth.2008).
Notably, a determination on appellate review may rest on alternative holdings. See Commonwealth v. Markman, 591 Pa. 249, 282 & n. 15, 916 A.2d 586, 606 & n. 15 (2007). Thus, I respectfully differ -with Madame Justice Todd’s suggestion that we should not reach the main issue of public importance here.

. See, e.g., Supplemental Brief for Appellant at 8 ("The Association voiced numerous concerns with this nascent construction, including concerns regarding the 'unconventional and sub-standard building methods used,’ the fact that the poured wall foundation forms had 'blown out' to create an uneven wall structure, and the fact that the foundation walls did not contain proper reinforcement materials and were not thick enough to support a house.”).

. Compare H.B. 2149, Printer No. 2896, Gen. Assem., Reg. Sess. (Pa. 2003) (reflecting the proposal to define "recreational cabin” as "[a] structure which is not occupied on a full-time basis and is used mainly by the occupants for the purpose of engaging in seasonal hunting and fishing”), with 35 P.S. § 7210.103(1) (defining “recreational cabin,” inter alia, in terms of principal use for "recreational activity”).