With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". principal use. 8 . Because we conclude that section 407(22) of the Ordinance is unambiguous in this regard, we disagree with the ZHB that we must interpret the Ordinance in a manner most favorable to Sheetz’s use of property. See section 603.1 of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, Act of July 31, 1968, P.L. 805, as amended, added by section 48 of the Ae1 of December 21, 1988, P.L. 1329, 53 P.S. § 10603.1 (stating that, in interpreting the language of zoning ordinances to determine the extent of the restriction upon the use of property, the language shall be interpreted, where doubt exists as to the intended meaning of the language written and enacted by the governing body, in favor of the property owner and against any implied extension of the restriction); Sunnyside Up (<HOLDING>). Further, we point out that, when a term is

A: holding that zoning ordinance can effect a regulatory taking if the ordinance does not substantially advance legitimate state interests or denies an owner all economically viable use of his land
B: holding that where a zoning board had no authority under state law to take certain actions with respect to a protected property interest a trier of fact could conclude that there was no rational basis for the towns zoning boards actions and that as a result the zoning board violated appellants rights to substantive due process
C: holding that because zoning restrictions are in derogation of property rights where a term in a zoning ordinance is undefined an ambiguity in that term must be construed in favor of the property owner and the least restrictive use of the land
D: holding that religious corporation which owned property had standing to challenge zoning ordinance
C.