to adequately inform landowners of the requirements they must satisfy to gain subdivision approval, and to allow a reviewing court to evaluate noncompliance. See Local Subdivision Regulation, supra, 24 Ga. L.Rev. at 536; see also Kaufman v. Planning and Zoning Comm’n of the City of Fairmont, 171 W.Va. 174, 298 S.E.2d 148, 154-55 (1982) (reversing denial of preliminary-plat approval on ground that statute requiring local government to determine whether distribution of traffic and population promoted “harmonious development” lacked specificity necessary to ensure fair administration and put subdividers on notice of requirements they must satisfy to obtain subdivision approval); Goodman v. Bd. of Comm’rs of the Township of South Whitehall, 49 Pa.Cmwlth. 35, 411 A.2d 838, 841 (1980) (<HOLDING>). Like the regulation in Odell, sections
holding that a contract will be read as a whole and the intent of each part will be gathered from a consideration of the whole holding that actions based on breach of fiduciary duty must inure to the benefit of the plan as a whole recognizing that whether the land as a whole can be valued on the basis of its potential use as a residential subdivision is a related but analytically distinct issue from whether valuation may be on the basis of the socalled lot method holding that a subclass of plan participants could sue where the remedy sought by plaintiffs would benefit the plan as a whole and  cure any harm that the plan suffered holding that subdivision plan could not be rejected on basis of subdivision ordinance statement of purpose declaring that subdivision must be coordinated with existing developments so that area as a whole may be developed harmoniously