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
holding that declaratory relief is not appropriate for determination of rights in anticipation of enforcement action that may never occur holding that the first filed rule should not be mechanically applied when a declaratory judgment action is filed in anticipation of a coercive action holding that the declaratory judgment act is remedial only and the party seeking declaratory relief must have an underlying cause of action holding that the determination and assessment of damages are not the primary purpose of a declaratory action holding that a district court may dismiss a declaratory judgment action that was filed in anticipation of  impending litigation and motivated solely by considerations of forum shopping