holding that “where a statute does not explicitly provide an agency with rule-making powers, if the agency is directed to operate under the statute,” it may adopt interpretive rules; also holding that regulation adopted without meeting procedural requirements was merely interpretive and not legislative
How later courts described this case
- holding that “where a statute does not explicitly provide an agency with rule-making powers, if the agency is directed to operate under the statute,” it may adopt interpretive rules; also holding that regulation adopted without meeting procedural requirements was merely interpretive and not legislative
- recognizing that Pennsylvania law allows for certain de minimis exceptions to zoning laws
- agency regulations are binding upon a reviewing court where properly enacted
- “Where an administrative agency is specifically authorized to adopt rules under a statute, the rules adopted by an agency are binding upon a reviewing court as part of the statute as long as they are (a) within the granted power, (b
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Chief Justice ZAPPALA,
dissenting.
I agree with the majority’s conclusion that “the Planning Commission has the authority to adopt rules based on its interpretation of [Philadelphia’s Zoning Code § 14-226] in order to further its administration of the ordinance.” Majority Opinion at 502. Further, I agree with the majority that the word “change” set forth in Section 14-226(2)(b) of the Code is not so clear and unambiguous as to not be subject to further interpretation. I disagree, however, with the majority’s implicit conclusion that this Court’s interpretation of the term “change” set forth in Section 14-226(2)(b) is more favorable than that established by the Planning Commission in implementing the Minor Modification Policy, a plan which was established by the Commission more than thirty years ago. Accordingly, I dissent.
As noted, the majority does not conclude that the Planning Commission lacked the authority to adopt a policy, such as the Minor Modification Policy, where such policy is reasonable and tracks the meaning of the law being interpreted. Specifically, in discussing whether Section 14-226(2) (b) absolutely precludes a policy of this nature, the majority concedes that given the purpose of the provision, i.e., to encourage planned residential developments on large tracts of open space,
it seems unlikely that City Council intended such a strict interpretation of the word “change” so that de minimis changes which fail to appreciably divert from a Master Plan, such as the removal of a parking space or the addition of hedges to the side of a building, would have to be presented and formally approved before the Planning Commission and City Council Clearly, if all de minimis changes had to be *170 approved according to the Amendment Procedure, development would constantly be stalled, which would ultimately discourage developers from building in RC-6 Residential Districts and defeat the very purpose for such Districts. Thus, as even Appellees agree, we may assume that City Council did not intend such an absolutist reading of Section 14-226.
Id. at 504. So while it appears that the majority would approve of a policy that implemented its notion of de minimis, here, the majority concludes that the specific policy implemented by the Planning Commission some thirty years ago goes beyond what it considers to be legitimately de minimis.
In my view, this Court’s interpretation of the word “change” for purposes of Section 14-226(2)(b), is no more reasonable than that given by the Planning Commission by way of the Minor Modification Policy. As noted, the City has operated pursuant to the policy for the last thirty years and, in my view, if Council was not satisfied with this policy, it could have, at anytime, legislatively overruled the policy by simply amending the Code to eliminate the practice. 1 Additionally, the majority’s approach legitimizes legal challenges based upon whether a particular change constitutes a de minimis change, as determined by this Court, and, thus, requires judicial intervention on a case by case basis.
*171 Based on the foregoing, I would conclude that our intervention in this matter is unwarranted, unnecessary and, in my view, a waste of judicial resources. Accordingly, I would reverse the Commonwealth Court’s decision.
Justice CASTILLE and Justice NEWMAN join this dissenting opinion.
. The majority notes, in footnote 14, the following in this regard:
because the record fails to establish whether the Planning Commission ever actually notified City Council of the Minor Modification Policy prior to the instant dispute, we cannot find that City Council’s failure to legislatively overrule the Policy evinces its approval.
Majority Opinion at 499 n. 14.
Contrary to the majority, I do not find the Commission’s failure to have specifically notified City Council of this policy as relevant in determining whether Council was aware of the policy. The evidence of record indicates that the policy was adopted in 1971, that the Commission has utilized the policy since then, and that the criteria implemented by the Planning Commission to determine what constitutes a minor modification was reduced to writing in 1986. Given this background, I fail to see to how City Council could have been unaware of the policy for such an extended period of time. Moreover, there is nothing in the record indicating that the City was unaware of the policy over the past quarter century.