IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Transcription

1 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Logan Greens Community : Association, Inc., : Appellant : : v. : No C.D : Argued: March 11, 2013 Church Reserve, LLC : BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE LEADBETTER FILED: September 20, 2013 Appellant, Logan Greens Community Association, Inc. (Association), appeals from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of York County (common pleas), which dismissed its action to quiet title. Common pleas held that Article XVI-I of the The Fiscal Code, Act of April 9, 1929, P.L. 34, as amended, 72 P.S I 1608-I, 1 tolled the time period during which Appellee, Church Reserve, LLC, had the right to withdraw and/or convert designated real estate. We reverse and remand this matter for further proceedings. 1 Article XVI-I of the Fiscal Code was added by Section 2.5 of the Act of July 6, 2010, P.L. 279 and is commonly known as the Permit Extension Act.

2 The Association is the homeowners association for the planned residential community known as Logan Greens located in Springfield Township, York County, Pennsylvania. Church Reserve developed and constructed Logan Greens. The Springfield Township Board of Supervisors (Township) approved the Logan Greens Final Subdivision Plan (Final Plan) on February 10, The approved Final Plan designated Lot 53 consisting of acres as an open space area. On July 30, 2003, Church Reserve created and formed the Association and as declarant recorded the Declaration of Logan Greens, A Planned Community (Declaration), pursuant to Section 5201 of the Uniform Planned Community Act, 68 Pa. C.S (Planned Community Act). The Declaration described Lot 53 as withdrawable real estate 2 and convertible real estate. 3 Article XIII, Section 13.1 of the Declaration permits Church Reserve to withdraw all or portions of Lot 53 from the Association. Article XIII, Section 13.2 requires the Township s written approval before Church Reserve may withdraw Lot 53 from the Association. Article XIV, Section 14.1 also permits Church Reserve to convert all or portions of Lot 53. Under Section 5206 of the Planned Community Act and under Articles XIII and XIV of the Declaration, the declarant may withdraw or convert real estate within seven years from the date of the Declaration s recording. Thus, Church Reserve had until July 30, 2010, to convert or withdraw Lot 53 from the Association. 2 Withdrawable real estate is defined as real estate that may be withdrawn from a flexible planned community. 68 Pa. C.S Convertible real estate is defined as a portion of a flexible planned community not within a building containing a unit, within which additional units, limited common facilities or limited controlled facilities or any combination thereof may be created. 68 Pa. C.S

3 On September 13, 2004, the Township approved the Logan Greens Lot 53 Revised Final Subdivision Plan (Lot 53 Subdivision Plan). The Lot 53 Subdivision Plan subdivided Lot 53 creating five additional lots - Lots 54, 55, 56, 57 and 58. Lot 54, which was part of the original Lot 53, remained withdrawable and/or convertible real estate. Church Reserve did not withdraw or convert Lot 54 within the seven-year period for doing so. Church Reserve has not executed a deed conveying Lot 54 to the Association. On July 4, 2010, Governor Rendell signed the Permit Extension Act into law which amended the Pennsylvania Fiscal Code and provided for the extensions of development permits. Section 1603-I(a) of the Act, 72 P.S I(a), provides: The expiration date of an approval by a government agency that is granted for or in effect during the extension period, whether obtained before or after the beginning of the extension period, shall be automatically suspended during the extension period. [emphasis added]. Section 1602-I of the Act, 72 P.S I, defines, in relevant part, the term approval as: (1) [A]ny government agency approval, agreement, permit, including a building permit or construction permit, or other authorization or decision: (i) Allowing a development or construction project to proceed; or (ii) Relating to or affecting development, granted pursuant to a statute, regulation or ordinance adopted by a municipality, including the following: * * * * (E) 68 Pa.C.S. Pt. H, Subpt. D (relating to planned communities). 3

4 Section 1602-I(7) of the Act, 72 P.S I(7), defines, in relevant part, the term development as the right to convert convertible real estate or withdraw withdrawable real estate pursuant to 68 Pa.C.S. Pt. H Subpt. B. (relating to condominiums) or 68 Pa.C.S. Pt, 11 Subpt. D (relating to planned communities). Under the Act, extension period is defined as the period beginning after December 31, 2008, and ending before July 2, P.S I. On February 22, 2011, the Association brought an action to quiet title in the court of common pleas asserting its interest in title to Lot 54 and requesting that common pleas extinguish Church Reserve s rights in Lot 54. Church Reserve filed preliminary objections arguing that the Permit Extension Act tolled the running of the conversion/withdrawal period. The parties submitted a stipulation of facts and an amended stipulation of facts. Common pleas found that the Permit Extension Act was ambiguous because the definition of approval under Section 1602-I includes reference to the Planned Community Act and the right to withdraw withdrawable real estate or convert convertible real estate even though conversion or withdrawal under the Planned Community Act does not require government approval. 5 Common pleas determined that the plain language utilized by the General Assembly in Section 4 The extension period originally ran during the period beginning after December 31, 2008, and ending before July 2, On July 2, 2012, the General Assembly amended Section 1602-I changing the extension period to July 2, Section 5211 of the Planned Community Act, 68 Pa. C.S. 5211, provides that a party may convert real estate by preparing, executing and recording an amendment to the declaration and by recording new plats and new plans for any buildings on the converted real estate as required by Section 5210(e), 68 Pa. C.S. 5210(e). Section 5212 of the Planned Community Act, 68 Pa. C.S. 5212, provides that a party may withdraw real estate by preparing, executing and recording an amendment to the declaration of planned community. 4

5 1603-1(a) requires approval by some government entity but, at the same time, Section 1602 appears to provide that the approval requirement can be met in instances where no government approval is required. Common Pleas Opinion at 9. Common pleas concluded that a grant pursuant to the Planned Community Act therefore constitutes government agency approval if it relates to or affects development. Id. at 12. Common pleas reasoned that in order to convert or withdraw Lot 54, Church Reserve must comply with the Planned Community Act and that [a]uthorization pursuant to the Planned Communit[y] Act that relates to or affects development, here, the right to convert or withdraw, is approval for the purposes of the [Permit Extension Act]. Id. at 13. Common pleas found that the seven-year deadline imposed by the Declaration related to or affected Church Reserve s right to convert or withdraw Lot 54 pursuant to the Planned Community Act and accordingly, was approval for the purposes of the Permit Extension Act. This appeal followed. The Association argues that the Declaration is a contract between the declarant, Church Reserve, and the Association and the seven-year conversion/withdrawal deadline is a contractual term with which Church Reserve must comply. The Association also asserts that common pleas erred in ignoring the term an approval by a government agency in Section 1603-I in reaching its conclusion that the Permit Extension Act tolled the conversion/withdrawal period. We need not address the Association s contract theory because we believe that Church Reserve s statutory right to withdraw or convert the lot has expired 5

6 pursuant to the seven year limitation of the Planned Community Act, and that the Permit Extension Act does not apply here. 6 The language of the Permit Extension Act specifically suspends the expiration date of a government agency approval. The statute provides that such approval may relate to the right to withdraw or convert real estate in planned communities, not that the declaration of the right to withdraw is itself a governmental agency approval. The exercise of the right to withdraw or convert may, of course, implicate such approvals. For instance, conversion requires the recording of new plats and plans, 7 and these may require approvals by the local agency. Here, although it was not required by Planned Community Act, Church Reserve provided in Article XIII of the Declaration that the Township s approval was a condition to its exercise of the right to withdraw. Such approvals, which would be related to or affect the right to withdraw or convert, would fall within the scope of the Permit Extension Act. However, the developer s Declaration itself is not a government agency decision and the seven year limit in the Declaration is not suspended by that Act. 6 The object of all statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the General Assembly. Section 1921(a) of the Statutory Construction Act of 1972, 1 Pa. C.S. 1921(a); McGrory v. Dep t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 591 Pa. 56, 915 A.2d 1155, 1158 (2007). The plain text of the statute is generally the best indication of legislative intent. Id. The sections of a statute must be read together and construed with reference to the whole statute. Am. Rock Mechs. v. N. Abonizio Contractors, Inc., 887 A.2d 322 (Pa. Super. 2005). When the words of the statute are not explicit, the General Assembly s intent may be ascertained by considering other factors, including the occasion and necessity for the statute; the circumstances under which it was enacted; the object to be attained; and the consequences of a particular interpretation. 1 Pa. C.S. 1921(c); Commonwealth v. Shiffler, 583 Pa. 478, 879 A.2d 185 (2005). In ascertaining the General Assembly s intent, we presume that the legislators have not intended an absurd or unreasonable result. 1 Pa. C.S. 1922(1). 7 See 68 Pa.C.S (e). 6

7 Nor is the seven year limitation contained in the Planned Community Act a government agency decision. The General Assembly is not a government agency; it is the legislature. Statutes are not approvals or decisions. If the General Assembly had intended the Permit Extension Act to suspend the applicability of the seven year limit on the right to convert or withdraw contained in the Planned Community Act, it would have said so directly. In short, because there is simply no government agency decision involved here, the Permit Extension Act does not apply. Even had we been persuaded that the language of the Permit Extension Act was ambiguous, we would not interpret it differently. The General Assembly enacted the Permit Extension Act in response to the recession, which had drastic effects on the real estate development and construction sectors. See Senate Bill 569 of 2009, Printer s No The Permit Extension Act was necessary because developers were unable to proceed with their projects due to the bad economy. Permits, which were obtained from planning boards and zoning board approvals for subdivisions, site plans and variances, often with much difficulty and expense, were expiring. Id. The General Assembly sought to prevent the wholesale abandonment of approved projects due to the expiration of permits. Id. The mere conversion or withdrawal of real estate does not implicate these concerns. Further, applying the Permit Extension Act in this case would be contrary to the purposes of Chapter 54 of the Planned Community Act, which is solely devoted to the protection of purchasers. The developer of a 8 Although Senate Bill 569 of 2009 did not become law, the legislative findings in the bill regarding the state of economy and the need to provide developers with extension of time to comply with permits certainly informed the development and ultimate enactment of the Permit Extension Act in

8 planned community is required to provide purchasers with a public offering statement which must include a description of any rights reserved by the declarant to withdraw real estate and the expected effect that withdrawal would have on the remaining portion of the planned community. 68 Pa. C.S. 5402(5). The developer is also required to specify the time period for conversion or withdrawal as part of the declaration of planned community. 68 Pa. C.S. 5205(13). Purchasers undoubtedly rely upon the terms and conditions delineated in both the public offering statement and the declaration of planned community in deciding whether to purchase property within a planned community. Extending the deadline for conversion or withdrawal would unnecessarily frustrate purchasers reliance upon these documents. For all of the foregoing reasons, we reverse and remand this matter for further proceedings. BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge 8

9 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Logan Greens Community : Association, Inc., : Appellant : : v. : No C.D : Church Reserve, LLC : O R D E R AND NOW, this 20th day of September, 2013, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of York County is hereby REVERSED and this matter is REMANDED for further proceedings. Jurisdiction relinquished. BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge