With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". R.R. 89a. 8 . The dissent contends that the Zoning Officer’s refusal to reclassify Darrah’s business as a processing establishment is a “determination" appealable to the Board. If a zoning board may not issue an advisory opinion, then neither can its zoning officer. The principle of Miller and Hopkins cannot be side-stepped simply by first requesting an opinion from a zoning officer. Further, a "reclassification” is nowhere addressed in the MPC. Darrah sought this "determination” in an effort to lock in a defense to the Township’s threatened enforcement action. When and if that action takes place, Darrah may litigate its theory that it is not a junkyard. See, e.g., Berger v. Commonwealth, Department of Environmental Resources, 42 Pa.Cmwlth. 206, 400 A.2d 905, 907 (1979) (<HOLDING>). DISSENTING OPINION BY President Judge

A: holding that the determination and assessment of damages are not the primary purpose of a declaratory action
B: holding that the first filed rule should not be mechanically applied when a declaratory judgment action is filed in anticipation of a coercive action
C: holding that the declaratory judgment act is remedial only and the party seeking declaratory relief must have an underlying cause of action
D: holding that declaratory relief is not appropriate for determination of rights in anticipation of enforcement action that may never occur
D.