dissenting.
I join the dissent of Mr. Justice Castille, but write separately to address the language of the Uniform Planned Community Act (UPCA).1 Specifically, the crux of the dispute sub judice focuses on the definition of a common facility, as well as the definition of a unit. I believe that the Majority errs in its approach to these definitions.
Initially, it is important to address the UPCA definitions. “Common facilities” are defined as “[a]ny real estate within a planned community which is owned by the association or leased to the association. The term does not include a unit.” *45068 Pa.C.S. § 5103. A “unit” is defined as “[a] physical portion of the planned community designated for separate ownership or occupancy, the boundaries of which are described [in a declaration] and a portion of which may be designated by the declaration as part of the controlled facilities.” Id. A “controlled facility” is “[a]ny real estate within a planned community, whether or not a part of a unit, that is not a common facility but is maintained, improved, repaired, replaced, regulated, managed, insured or controlled by the association.” Id.
The Majority contends, and Appellants concede, that the requirements for being a common facility and, therefore, exempt from taxation are that: (1) the property is located in Saw Creek; (2) the property is owned by the Saw Creek Community Association (Association); and (3) the property is not a unit.
It is certainly possible to categorize the real estate office and the restaurant as either a unit or a common facility. However, there are several factors militating in favor of the position of Appellants that the real estate office and restaurant are not common facilities by virtue of general statutory construction, the specific non-unit requirement, and the principle that underlies the exemption of common facilities.
First, “[t]he question of entitlement to an exemption is a mixed one of law and fact and absent any abuse of discretion or a lack of supporting evidence the decision of the trial judge is binding on [the Commonwealth] Court.” Appeal of Planned Parenthood Association of Bucks County, 55 Pa. Cmwlth. 195, 423 A.2d 760, 761 (1980) (internal citation omitted); see also Pa. Const. Art. 8 § 2(a). Presently, the trial court reasoned that the real estate office and restaurant were run by outside corporations with exclusive control and for the exclusive use of a third party entity other than the Association. Additionally, the trial court gave credence to the fact that Saw Creek property owners do not have unfettered use, control, or dominion over the properties, but rather that the office and restaurant are separately used, occupied, maintained, and controlled for the profit of a private entity. *451Accordingly, the trial court concluded that the two were not common facilities, but units.
Second, statutory provisions exempting property from taxation are strictly construed and it is the burden of the taxpayer to bring itself within the scope of that exemption. In the Matter of Tax Assessment of Real Estate of Greater Erie Economic Development Corporation, 61 Pa.Cmwlth. 144, 433 A.2d 568, 570 (1981); 72 P.S. § 5020-204(a). This construct weighs in favor of finding the restaurant and real estate office as units and, therefore, separately taxable. The burden is upon the restaurant and real estate office to demonstrate that they fit the exemption.
Third, and most importantly, the legislative intent leads one to believe that the two parcels should be considered units based on the definition of “limited common facility” contained in the UPCA. Specifically, a “limited common facility” is defined as “[a] portion of the common facilities allocated by or pursuant to the declaration ... for the exclusive use of one or more but fewer than all of the units.” 68 Pa.C.S. § 5103 (emphasis added). By referring to “exclusive use” to define a limited common facility, the legislature has strongly implied that a common facility must be devoted solely to the use of the members of the association and their guests. The limited factor relates to the fact that not all of the units within the association must be able to use the facility. However, a common facility would, logically, be considered as being for the exclusive use of all of the units.
In the case at hand, the trial court noted that the restaurant and real estate office are not for the exclusive use of the members of the Association—they are both open to the general public. This contrasts with the generally accepted examples of a common facility dedicated to the exclusive use of residents and their guests, such as a pool, clubhouse, fitness center, and the like. In each of the preceding examples, the facility is for the exclusive use of all the units within the development and not for the general public. As noted by Mr. Justice Castille’s well-reasoned dissent, we held in In re Township of Moon, 387 Pa. 144, 127 A.2d 361, 364 (1956) *452(quoting West View Borough Municipal Authority Appeal, 381 Pa. 416, 113 A.2d 307, 309 (1955)), that commercial purposes or business enterprises are a basis for losing tax exempt status, and the test is whether the use is private or public.
The Majority approaches the definition of a unit from another angle. Specifically, drawing from the statutory definition, to be considered a unit, a parcel must be: (1) a physical portion of the property; (2) designated for separate ownership or occupancy; and (3) described in the declaration for the planned community. 68 Pa.C.S. § 5103. The real estate office and restaurant clearly meet each of these requirements based upon the plain language of the statute.
However, the Majority contends that because a unit is designated for separate ownership or occupancy, the definition of a unit can be satisfied only if the owners or lessees are entitled to use the property for themselves and have no obligation to share the property with others. Such an interpretation reads a requirement into the statute that does not exist. Even if that requirement was read into the statute or was reasonable, no obligation exists on the part of either entity to share the property with others. The fact that the two disputed businesses are commercial enterprises means that by their very nature, they desire to attract patrons. However, the power to exclude rests solely with the business owners, who are non-Saw Creek residents. Moreover, none of the residents have, at any time, free and unfettered access to the property; rather, such control is in the hands of the business operators.
The Majority additionally implies that part of its reasoning concerns the alleged purpose of the restaurant and real estate office; namely to benefit the Saw Creek homeowners. See Majority Opinion at 444 n. 11, 866 A.2d at 265 n. 11. However, the alleged purpose and benefit of the two businesses are not important as to their categorization or definition. Even if the purpose were relevant to the decision, a ten percent discount to residents at the restaurant hardly qualifies as being for the benefit of Saw Creek residents. More important is that non-Saw Creek residents receive the benefit of operat*453ing a commercial enterprise, and other non-Saw Creek residents are not excluded from the property. Further, the proprietors of the businesses could choose to exclude Saw Creek residents, or anybody, from entering the restaurant. This stands in contrast to the typical examples of a common facility such as a clubhouse, pool, fitness center, and the like, which are all for the exclusive use of the residents and their guests.
Accordingly, the two properties satisfy the plain and clear definition of a unit and, therefore, do not meet the definition of a common facility. Moreover, logically, a restaurant and real estate office do not constitute the traditional type of operations that fall within the scope of a common facility for a planned association. Therefore, I respectfully dissent from the determination of the Majority and conclude that the real estate office and restaurant are not common facilities. Thus, they should not be exempt from taxation pursuant to the UPCA.
Justice CASTILLE joins this dissenting opinion.. Act of December 19, 1996, P.L. 1336, No. 180, § 1 (68 Pa.C.S. §§ 5101—5414).