The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), 53 P.S. § 10101 et seq., outlines the framework for municipal planning and zoning. Section 503 of the MPC, 53 P.S. § 10503, specifically addresses the adoption of zoning ordinances. This section mandates that a zoning ordinance may be amended by the governing body of a municipality. The process for amendment typically involves public notice, a public hearing, and a vote by the governing body. The question focuses on the legal mechanism for changing an existing zoning map, which is an integral part of a zoning ordinance. A zoning map graphically depicts the zoning districts and their boundaries within a municipality. Altering this map constitutes a change to the zoning ordinance itself. Therefore, the proper procedure for amending the zoning map aligns with the statutory requirements for amending a zoning ordinance. This involves formal action by the municipal governing body, following the procedural safeguards established by the MPC, such as public notification and hearings, to ensure transparency and community input. The governing body’s legislative power is exercised through the adoption and amendment of ordinances, including zoning ordinances and their accompanying maps.

The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically Article VII, governs subdivision and land development. When a developer proposes a subdivision that does not conform to the existing zoning ordinance but seeks approval, the process typically involves a request for a variance or a special exception from the zoning board. However, the MPC outlines a specific procedure for preliminary and final plan approval for subdivisions. Under Section 703 of the MPC, a municipal governing body or its designated planning agency reviews preliminary subdivision plans. If a proposed subdivision plan deviates from zoning requirements, the governing body or planning agency, after consultation with the zoning officer, may grant preliminary approval contingent upon the applicant obtaining the necessary zoning relief. The final approval of the subdivision plan by the governing body, as per Section 704 of the MPC, is then dependent on the applicant demonstrating compliance with all applicable ordinances and regulations, including any zoning variances or special exceptions granted by the zoning hearing board. Therefore, the governing body’s final approval of a subdivision plan that initially deviates from zoning is predicated on the successful resolution of those zoning issues through the appropriate zoning relief mechanisms, which are distinct from the subdivision approval process itself but are a prerequisite for final plan conformity. The key is that subdivision approval is about the physical layout and improvements, while zoning approval addresses land use.

The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), 53 P.S. § 10101 et seq., outlines the framework for land use planning and development in the Commonwealth. When a municipality adopts a comprehensive plan, it serves as the guiding document for future land use decisions. Subsequent zoning ordinances must be enacted in accordance with this comprehensive plan. If a zoning ordinance is not consistent with the comprehensive plan, it is considered legally vulnerable. The MPC emphasizes the importance of a legally adopted comprehensive plan as the foundation for zoning. Therefore, any rezoning action, such as changing a parcel from residential to commercial use, must be demonstrably consistent with the municipality’s adopted comprehensive plan. The absence of a comprehensive plan, or a plan that does not support the proposed zoning change, renders the rezoning action susceptible to legal challenge based on its inconsistency with the overarching planning goals. This principle ensures that zoning decisions are not arbitrary but are rooted in a long-term vision for the community’s development.

The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically Article VII, governs subdivision and land development. When a municipality approves a preliminary or final plan for subdivision or land development, it can impose conditions. These conditions are typically related to public health, safety, and general welfare, and are intended to ensure that the development is orderly and does not negatively impact existing infrastructure or the community. The MPC grants municipalities the authority to require improvements such as streets, sidewalks, water supply, sewage disposal, and stormwater management as a condition of plan approval. However, these conditions must be reasonable, necessary, and directly related to the proposed development. The authority to impose conditions is derived from the municipality’s police power, exercised through its planning and zoning functions. The specific requirements for improvements are often detailed in local ordinances, which must be consistent with the MPC. The process involves review by the planning commission and subsequent approval or denial by the governing body. The imposition of conditions is a critical aspect of ensuring that new developments integrate effectively into the existing community fabric and meet established standards.

The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically Article VI concerning Zoning, outlines the procedures for amending zoning ordinances. Section 609.1 of the MPC, as amended, details the requirements for a valid zoning map amendment, often referred to as a “downzoning” or “upzoning” when it changes the permitted land use. For a zoning map amendment to be legally binding and withstand judicial scrutiny, the municipal governing body must adhere strictly to the procedural mandates. These mandates include providing adequate public notice of the proposed amendment, typically through newspaper publication, and conducting a public hearing. Crucially, the MPC requires that any amendment to the zoning ordinance, including the zoning map, must be officially adopted by the municipal governing body, usually the board of supervisors or city council, through a formal vote and recorded in the official minutes. Furthermore, the amended ordinance must be properly advertised and made available for public inspection. Failure to follow these procedural steps can render the amendment invalid. In this scenario, the rezoning of the parcel from R-1 Residential to C-2 Commercial by the borough council, without the required public notice and hearing, and without formal adoption and advertisement of the amended zoning map, constitutes a procedural defect. Such a defect means the rezoning action is not legally effective. The MPC does not permit informal or unadvertified changes to zoning regulations. Therefore, the parcel remains zoned R-1 Residential.

In Pennsylvania, the Municipal Authorities Act of 1945, as amended, governs the creation and operation of municipal authorities. These authorities are independent, quasi-governmental entities established to provide essential public services, such as water, sewer, and parking, often financed through revenue bonds. When a municipality wishes to establish an authority, it must adopt an ordinance authorizing the creation of the authority and appointing its board members. The articles of incorporation are then filed with the Department of State. The Act specifically addresses the process for the dissolution of an authority. Dissolution typically involves a resolution by the authority’s board, followed by a petition to the Court of Common Pleas in the county where the authority is located. The court then reviews the petition, considering factors such as outstanding debts, the transfer of assets, and the continuation of services. If the court approves the dissolution, it issues a decree. The question hinges on the specific statutory requirement for initiating the dissolution process by the authority itself. The Municipal Authorities Act outlines that the authority’s board of directors, by a resolution adopted by a majority of its members, can initiate the dissolution process. This internal resolution is the prerequisite for seeking court approval.

The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically Article VII, governs the subdivision and land development process. When a developer proposes a subdivision that does not conform to the municipality’s approved subdivision and land development ordinance, the municipality has several options. One critical aspect is the ability of the municipality to require a developer to make improvements or provide guarantees for improvements necessary to serve the subdivision. This is often codified in municipal ordinances pursuant to the MPC. The MPC, in Section 701.1, grants municipalities the authority to require that a developer install or provide for the installation of streets, curbs, sidewalks, street lighting, shade trees, and other improvements as a condition of subdivision approval. Furthermore, Section 701.1(f) of the MPC allows for the deferral of improvements if they are not immediately required. In such cases, the municipality may require the developer to enter into a developer’s agreement that includes a performance guarantee, such as a certified check, bank guarantee, or irrevocable letter of credit, to ensure the completion of these deferred improvements. The amount of this guarantee is typically determined by the municipality based on the estimated cost of the improvements. The question tests the understanding of the municipality’s power to condition subdivision approval on the provision of necessary improvements, even if those improvements are to be deferred, and the acceptable forms of financial assurance for such deferred improvements under Pennsylvania law.

The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically Article VI concerning subdivision and land development, outlines the process for approving preliminary and final plans. When a developer submits a preliminary subdivision plan for review, the municipal planning agency or its designated representative, such as a planning commission or staff, must review it against the municipality’s zoning ordinance, subdivision and land development ordinance, and other relevant regulations. The MPC, at 53 P.S. § 10606, generally requires the governing body to render a decision on a preliminary plan within 90 days of its submission, unless the applicant agrees to an extension. This decision involves a formal vote by the governing body, such as the borough council or township supervisors. The decision must be based on whether the plan conforms to the municipal ordinances and the comprehensive plan. If the plan is approved, it is usually subject to conditions that must be met before final plan approval. If it is denied, the reasons for denial must be stated in writing and communicated to the applicant. The role of the planning commission is advisory; the ultimate decision-making authority rests with the municipal governing body. Therefore, the municipal governing body, not the planning commission or the solicitor, makes the final decision on the preliminary subdivision plan.

The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically Article VI, governs subdivision and land development. When a developer submits a plan for review, the municipal governing body has a statutory period to act upon it. If the governing body fails to approve or deny the plan within the prescribed time, the plan is deemed approved by operation of law. The MPC, at 53 P.S. § 10608(g), states that if the governing body or its designated body fails to approve or deny the application within ninety days from the date of submission, the application shall be deemed approved. This ninety-day period is a critical statutory safeguard to prevent undue delays in development. The question tests the understanding of this “deemed approval” provision, which is a fundamental aspect of subdivision and land development regulation in Pennsylvania. The calculation is straightforward: the submission date plus ninety days constitutes the deadline for official action. Any action taken after this deadline, without a formal extension agreed upon by the parties, is legally ineffective regarding the approval or denial of the plan. The purpose of this provision is to ensure timely administrative processes and to provide a remedy for developers facing administrative inaction. This is distinct from other timeframes, such as those related to zoning variances or special exceptions, which may have different statutory or regulatory timelines.

The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically Article XI concerning municipal authority powers, grants municipalities broad authority to establish and operate municipal authorities. These authorities are independent bodies corporate and politic, separate from the municipality itself, and can be formed for various public purposes, including water supply, sewage treatment, and solid waste management. The formation of such an authority requires a municipal ordinance. Once established, an authority can issue bonds, enter into contracts, and acquire property, all for the purpose of fulfilling its designated public service mission. The key distinction is that the authority operates with its own governing body and finances, though it is created and overseen by the municipal government. This structure allows for specialized management and financing of public utilities and services, often facilitating the issuance of revenue bonds that are not general obligations of the municipality. The establishment of a municipal authority is a statutory power that municipalities in Pennsylvania can exercise to enhance service delivery and financial management for public infrastructure.

The question concerns the procedural requirements for a municipality in Pennsylvania to adopt an ordinance that amends its zoning map. The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically Article VI, governs zoning and subdivision. Section 609 of the MPC outlines the procedure for adopting a zoning ordinance, which includes requirements for notice and public hearings. When a zoning map amendment is proposed, the municipality must provide notice of the proposed amendment and the date, time, and place of the hearing to the county planning agency and the governing body of any adjacent municipality. This notice must be given at least 30 days prior to the hearing. Furthermore, the proposed ordinance must be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality at least 15 days prior to the hearing. The MPC also mandates that the ordinance, once adopted, must be recorded in the office of the recorder of deeds of the county and filed with the Department of Community and Economic Development. The question asks about the minimum notice period required for the newspaper publication before the hearing. Based on Section 609 of the MPC, the newspaper publication must occur at least 15 days prior to the public hearing. Therefore, the correct answer reflects this 15-day minimum notice period for publication.

The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically Article VI, governs the subdivision and land development process. When a municipality adopts a SALDO, it must adhere to the procedural requirements outlined in the MPC. Section 606 of the MPC mandates that the governing body of a municipality shall review and act upon a preliminary subdivision plan within 90 days of its submission, provided that the applicant has submitted all required documentation. If the governing body fails to act within this timeframe, the plan is deemed approved. This deeming provision is a crucial protection for applicants, ensuring timely municipal action. The MPC also specifies that if a municipality has not adopted a SALDO, then the provisions of Article VI of the MPC apply directly, including the 90-day review period. The question asks about the approval of a preliminary subdivision plan in a Pennsylvania municipality that has adopted a SALDO but has not yet provided for a specific time limit for preliminary plan approval in its ordinance. In such a scenario, the default statutory timeframe provided by the MPC applies. The MPC, in Section 606, establishes a 90-day period for action on preliminary plans. Failure to act within this period results in automatic approval. Therefore, if the municipality fails to act on the preliminary subdivision plan within 90 days of its submission, the plan is considered approved by default under Pennsylvania law.

The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically Article VII concerning Subdivision and Land Development, outlines the procedural requirements for municipal review and approval of subdivisions. Section 701 of the MPC (53 P.S. § 10701) mandates that a developer must submit a preliminary or final plan for approval by the governing body. Article X-A of the MPC, concerning Planned Residential Developments, also provides a framework for such developments, often requiring a single application for tentative plan approval. However, the core requirement for any subdivision, regardless of the specific development type, is submission to the municipality for review. The question probes the initial procedural step a developer must take to legally initiate the process of dividing a tract of land into smaller parcels for sale or development. This involves presenting the proposed layout and details to the appropriate municipal body for official consideration and potential approval, as dictated by the MPC’s planning and subdivision regulations. The process is designed to ensure that new developments conform to local zoning ordinances, comprehensive plans, and public health and safety standards. Without this initial submission, no further review or approval can occur.

The question revolves around the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically the provisions governing the adoption and amendment of municipal comprehensive plans. Section 502 of the MPC, 53 P.S. § 10502, outlines the procedure for adopting a comprehensive plan. This process requires a public hearing, notice of which must be published at least once a week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality. The last publication must occur at least 10 days prior to the hearing. Furthermore, the proposed plan must be submitted to the county planning agency for review and recommendation, with a minimum of 30 days for this review period. After receiving the county’s recommendation, or if no recommendation is received within the 30-day period, the governing body can adopt the plan by resolution. Amendments to a comprehensive plan follow a similar, though often less rigorous, process, also requiring public notice and a hearing, and adherence to the MPC’s procedural mandates. The critical element here is the procedural due process afforded to the public and other governmental entities, ensuring transparency and opportunity for input. The scenario presented involves a borough council attempting to amend its comprehensive plan without adhering to the statutory notice requirements for public hearings. This procedural defect renders the amendment invalid. The MPC, at 53 P.S. § 10607, addresses the enforcement and remedies for violations of its provisions, including the invalidation of actions taken contrary to its mandates. Therefore, the amendment is voidable due to the failure to provide proper public notice as stipulated by 53 P.S. § 10502.

The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically Article VII, governs subdivision and land development. Section 704 of the MPC outlines the requirements for subdivision plats. A key aspect of this section is the requirement for the developer to post a performance bond or other security to ensure the completion of required improvements. This bond is typically posted with the municipality before the final approval of the subdivision plat or before the commencement of any work. The purpose of the performance bond is to protect the municipality and its residents from the financial burden of completing infrastructure improvements if the developer defaults. The amount of the bond is determined by the municipality based on the estimated cost of the improvements, which is usually verified by an independent engineer. The bond is released in stages as improvements are completed and accepted by the municipality, with a final release occurring upon satisfactory completion of all required improvements. This mechanism ensures that public infrastructure, such as roads, sidewalks, and utilities, is properly constructed according to approved plans and municipal standards, without the municipality bearing the upfront cost.

The Borough of Oakhaven, a second-class township in Pennsylvania, is considering an ordinance to regulate the placement of satellite dishes on residential properties. The borough solicitor advises that while municipalities have broad authority to enact zoning ordinances under the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically Article VI, the regulations must be reasonable and cannot arbitrarily infringe upon federal law or constitutional rights. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has regulations that preempt state and local laws that unreasonably restrict satellite dish installation. The key is to balance local aesthetic concerns or public safety with federal directives promoting access to satellite services. An ordinance that completely prohibits satellite dishes or imposes requirements that are technically infeasible or prohibitively expensive would likely be found to violate the FCC’s preemption rules and the constitutional right to free speech, as satellite dishes can be used for receiving broadcast content. Therefore, a permissible ordinance would focus on reasonable restrictions, such as placement to minimize visual impact on the streetscape, adherence to building codes for structural integrity, and avoiding interference with public utility easements, all while ensuring the resident can still receive the satellite signal. An ordinance that mandates a specific type of landscaping to hide the dish or requires expensive underground wiring for all installations would likely be deemed unreasonable. The question asks for the most appropriate action for the borough council, considering these legal constraints. The council must ensure any ordinance is consistent with federal law and constitutional principles.

The question concerns the application of the Municipalities Planning Code (MPC) in Pennsylvania regarding the subdivision and land development process. Specifically, it probes the authority of a municipality to impose conditions on preliminary and final plan approvals beyond those explicitly enumerated in the MPC or its own ordinances. The MPC, particularly Article V, outlines the requirements for subdivision and land development. While municipalities have broad powers to regulate land use through zoning and subdivision ordinances, these powers are not unlimited and must be exercised within the statutory framework. Conditions imposed on plan approvals must be reasonable, related to the proposed development, and consistent with the municipality’s comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. The MPC does not grant carte blanche authority to impose arbitrary or unrelated conditions. For instance, requiring a developer to fund off-site improvements that do not directly benefit or mitigate the impact of the proposed subdivision, or imposing conditions that are not legally permissible under other statutes or constitutional principles, would likely exceed the municipality’s authority. The power to condition approvals is a tool to ensure that development is orderly, safe, and consistent with community goals, but it must be exercised judiciously and in accordance with established legal principles.

The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically Article V concerning subdivision and land development, outlines the process and requirements for approving or disapproving preliminary and final subdivision plans. When a planning agency receives a preliminary subdivision plan, it is required to submit the plan to the governing body and, if applicable, to the county planning agency and any other designated municipal or county agencies for review and comment. The MPC, at 53 P.S. § 10506, mandates that the governing body must act upon a preliminary plan within a specified period, typically 90 days from submission, unless the applicant agrees to an extension. Failure to act within this timeframe generally results in the plan being deemed approved. However, this automatic approval is contingent upon the applicant fulfilling all procedural requirements. If the plan does not conform to the MPC and any adopted municipal ordinances, the governing body has the authority to disapprove it, provided it articulates the reasons for disapproval in writing. The explanation of disapproval must be specific and relate to the failure to meet statutory or ordinance requirements. The governing body’s decision is then communicated to the applicant.

The Borough of Oakhaven, a municipality in Pennsylvania, seeks to enact a zoning ordinance amendment to permit mixed-use development in a previously exclusively residential zone. This amendment requires a public hearing and approval by the borough council. The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically Article VI, governs this process. Section 609 of the MPC outlines the procedures for adopting and amending zoning ordinances. Key requirements include advertising the proposed amendment in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality at least once a week for two consecutive weeks, with the last advertisement appearing at least ten days prior to the public hearing. Additionally, notice must be provided to the county planning commission. The ordinance amendment itself must be adopted by a majority vote of the borough council. The question probes the specific procedural requirements for enacting a zoning ordinance amendment under Pennsylvania law. The correct answer reflects the statutory mandates for public notice and council adoption as stipulated in the MPC.

The scenario presented involves a township supervisor in Pennsylvania who, while acting in their official capacity, is alleged to have engaged in a pattern of harassment against a local business owner. This situation touches upon the legal ramifications of official misconduct and the potential for personal liability. In Pennsylvania, local government officials, including township supervisors, are generally afforded a degree of immunity for actions taken within the scope of their official duties, often referred to as governmental or sovereign immunity. However, this immunity is not absolute. It typically does not extend to actions taken in bad faith, with malicious intent, or that constitute intentional torts, such as harassment or defamation, particularly when those actions exceed the bounds of legitimate governmental authority. The Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (53 Pa. C.S. § 5311.101 et seq.) is the primary statute governing tort liability of local agencies and their employees. Under this Act, immunity is the general rule, but specific exceptions exist. For intentional torts like harassment, the conduct must be demonstrably outside the scope of employment or undertaken with a malicious purpose to recover damages. The question of whether the supervisor’s actions were within the scope of their duties or constituted an abuse of power, thus negating immunity, would depend on the specific facts and evidence presented, including the nature of the interactions, the supervisor’s motivations, and whether the actions served a legitimate governmental purpose or were driven by personal animus. The core legal principle at play is the balance between protecting public officials from frivolous lawsuits to encourage decisive action and ensuring accountability for egregious misconduct that harms citizens. The determination of liability would likely involve an analysis of whether the supervisor’s conduct was so egregious as to fall outside the protections of the Tort Claims Act.

The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically Article VI, governs subdivision and land development. Section 603 of the MPC, 53 P.S. §10603, outlines the requirements for the submission of a preliminary or final plan for subdivision or land development. This section mandates that a plan must be submitted to the governing body or its designated agency for review and approval. The governing body, typically the municipal planning commission or council, is responsible for reviewing the plan for compliance with local ordinances, zoning regulations, and the MPC itself. The process involves a formal submission and review period. While municipalities may establish their own specific submission procedures and deadlines within the framework of the MPC, the fundamental requirement is the formal submission of the plan to the governing body for official consideration. This ensures that development is reviewed for its impact on public infrastructure, services, and the overall community plan. The MPC does not mandate a specific number of days for submission prior to a hearing, but rather the submission itself is the prerequisite for the governing body’s review process. Therefore, the core legal requirement is the act of submission to the governing body.

The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically Article VI concerning Subdivision and Land Development, outlines the requirements for municipal review and approval of land development proposals. Section 603 of the MPC mandates that a developer must submit a preliminary plan for review by the governing body and planning agency. This plan serves as a comprehensive document detailing the proposed layout, infrastructure, and compliance with local ordinances. Upon submission, the planning agency has a statutory period, typically 60 days, to review the preliminary plan, though this period can be extended by mutual agreement. During this review, the agency assesses the plan for adherence to zoning, subdivision regulations, and other relevant land use standards. The governing body then considers the planning agency’s recommendation and makes a decision on the preliminary plan. If approved, it signifies that the general concept and design are acceptable, allowing the developer to proceed to the more detailed final plan stage. A failure to act within the statutory timeframe, without the developer’s consent for an extension, can result in the plan being deemed approved by operation of law, a critical procedural safeguard. This process ensures that municipal authorities have adequate time for thorough review and that developers are not subjected to indefinite delays.

The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically Article VI concerning subdivision and land development, outlines the procedural requirements for a developer to obtain approval for a proposed subdivision. Section 603 of the MPC, 53 P.S. §10603, mandates that a developer must submit a preliminary or final plan for review by the governing body. The governing body, typically the municipal planning commission or council, then has a statutory period to review this plan. If the plan is submitted and no action is taken by the governing body within the prescribed time, the plan is deemed approved. This statutory period is crucial for ensuring timely review and preventing indefinite delays. The MPC provides specific timeframes, which can be extended by mutual agreement. The core principle is that a developer has a right to a decision within a defined timeframe, and the absence of a decision within that timeframe constitutes approval. This mechanism is designed to balance the municipality’s need for thorough review with the developer’s need for certainty and progress. Understanding these timeframes and the consequences of inaction is vital for local government officials and developers alike, as it directly impacts the development process and potential legal challenges. The MPC’s provisions on subdivision approval are a cornerstone of land use regulation in Pennsylvania, ensuring that development proceeds in an orderly and legally sound manner.

The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically Article XI concerning Subdivision and Land Development, outlines the procedures for municipal review and approval of land development plans. Section 10502-A of the MPC, 53 P.S. § 1010502-A, details the requirements for preliminary and final plan submissions. A municipality must act upon a preliminary subdivision plan within 90 days of its submission, unless the applicant agrees to an extension. If no action is taken within this timeframe, the plan is deemed approved. This statutory period is a critical safeguard for developers to ensure timely municipal review. Failure to adhere to this timeline can result in automatic approval, regardless of the merits of the plan from the municipality’s perspective, provided the submission met all procedural requirements. This provision encourages efficient processing and prevents undue delays in development. The 90-day clock is a hard deadline, and any municipality seeking to deny or request revisions must formally communicate its decision and the reasons for it within this period.

The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically Article VI concerning subdivision and land development, outlines the process for approving or rejecting subdivision plans. Section 608 of the MPC, 53 P.S. § 10608, details the time limits for municipal action on preliminary and final subdivision plans. For a preliminary subdivision plan, a municipality has 90 days after submission to approve or disapprove it. If no action is taken within this period, the plan is deemed approved. For a final subdivision plan, the MPC generally allows 90 days from submission for approval or disapproval, with an automatic approval if no action is taken. However, the MPC also permits municipalities to establish different timeframes by ordinance, provided they are not less than 30 days. In this scenario, the township has a 60-day ordinance. Since the final subdivision plan was submitted on March 1st and the township council voted to disapprove it on April 29th, the action falls within the 60-day period (March 1st to April 30th is 60 days). Therefore, the disapproval is timely. The question hinges on the interplay between the statutory MPC timeframes and a municipality’s authority to enact its own ordinances setting different, but not shorter, time limits for subdivision plan review. The fact that the township has an ordinance specifying a 60-day review period supersedes the general 90-day statutory period for the purpose of this specific municipality’s review process, as long as the ordinance’s timeframe is not less than 30 days, which it is not. The crucial element is that the disapproval occurred *before* the expiration of the 60-day period.

The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically Article VII regarding subdivision and land development, grants municipalities the authority to regulate land development through the adoption of a SALDO. A SALDO is a comprehensive set of regulations governing the division of land into smaller parcels, the design of streets, utilities, and open spaces, and the submission and review of plans for such developments. The purpose of a SALDO is to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the municipality by ensuring orderly growth, preventing overcrowding, providing adequate public facilities, and protecting environmental resources. The MPC empowers municipalities to require developers to submit preliminary and final subdivision plats for review and approval by the planning commission and governing body. Approval is contingent upon compliance with the SALDO and other applicable ordinances. Failure to comply can result in penalties, including the inability to record plats or obtain building permits. The core concept is that the SALDO provides the legal framework and standards for how land can be divided and developed within a municipality, ensuring that new developments are consistent with the community’s overall planning goals and public health and safety considerations.

The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically Article VII concerning municipal planning and zoning, outlines the procedures and requirements for subdivision and land development. When a developer submits a preliminary plan for a proposed subdivision in Pennsylvania, the MPC mandates specific review periods for the governing body and its planning agency. The law requires that the governing body must approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the preliminary plan within 90 days after submission. This period can be extended by mutual agreement between the applicant and the municipality. If no action is taken by the governing body within this 90-day period, and no extension has been agreed upon, the plan is deemed to have been approved. This provision encourages timely action by municipal officials and provides a degree of certainty for developers. The planning agency also has a role in reviewing the plan and providing recommendations to the governing body, but the ultimate decision rests with the governing body.

The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically Article VI, governs the subdivision and land development process. When a municipality adopts a SALDO (Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance), it establishes the procedural and substantive requirements for approving or disapproving proposed subdivisions. The MPC, at 55 P.S. § 10501, outlines the powers of the governing body concerning subdivisions. A municipality’s SALDO can impose reasonable conditions on subdivision plans to ensure public health, safety, and general welfare, which includes provisions for adequate improvements. In this scenario, the township’s SALDO, as authorized by the MPC, allows for the imposition of conditions related to infrastructure development, such as the construction of a public access road, as a prerequisite for subdivision approval. The developer’s submission of a preliminary plan that includes a proposed road layout, even if not fully constructed at that stage, indicates an acknowledgment of the need for such infrastructure. The township’s requirement for a bond to guarantee the completion of this public access road is a standard mechanism to ensure that the developer fulfills their obligations before final plan approval and the creation of new lots. This practice is consistent with the municipality’s authority to require improvements necessary for the orderly development of the area and to protect the public interest, as detailed in the MPC. The bond ensures that if the developer fails to complete the road, the municipality can use the secured funds to complete it, thereby preventing the creation of lots that are inaccessible or inadequately served. This directly relates to the municipality’s responsibility to ensure that subdivisions are properly planned and that necessary public infrastructure is in place or guaranteed.

The question concerns the process by which a borough in Pennsylvania can annex adjacent unincorporated territory. Pennsylvania law, specifically the Borough Code, outlines procedures for such annexations. One common method involves a petition signed by a majority of the freeholders residing in the territory to be annexed. Upon the filing of such a petition with the court of quarter sessions, the court appoints viewers to ascertain the facts. The viewers then file a report, and after notice and a hearing, the court may decree the annexation if it finds the petition is in conformity with the law and the annexation is advisable. Another method involves a referendum in the territory to be annexed, but the question specifically references a petition signed by freeholders. The Borough Code also addresses the minimum acreage and population requirements for annexation, as well as the process for objections and remonstrances. The core of the question lies in identifying the statutory authority that governs this annexation process in Pennsylvania. The Borough Code, 8 Pa. C.S. § 1111 et seq., directly addresses the annexation of adjacent territory by boroughs. Other statutes like the First Class Township Code or the Second Class Township Code govern township actions, and the Municipalities Planning Code relates to land use planning, but the Borough Code is the primary legislation for borough annexations. Therefore, the correct statutory basis for a borough’s annexation of adjacent unincorporated land via freeholder petition is the Borough Code.

The Borough of Harmony, Pennsylvania, in its pursuit of economic development, proposes to establish a special taxing district to fund infrastructure improvements specifically for a new industrial park. The borough council, after conducting public hearings and preparing a feasibility study, intends to levy a special assessment on properties within the district that are deemed to directly benefit from the proposed improvements, such as enhanced road access and utility extensions. The legal basis for such an action in Pennsylvania is primarily found within the Borough Code, specifically provisions allowing for the creation of special districts and the levying of special assessments to pay for public improvements that confer a special benefit upon properties within the district. The key principle is that the assessment should not exceed the special benefit conferred upon the property. This is a well-established power of municipal corporations in Pennsylvania, often utilized for localized improvements where a broader tax base would be inequitably burdened. The process typically involves a formal ordinance, a defined district, and a methodology for calculating assessments based on factors like front footage, area, or estimated benefit, subject to legal challenge if the benefit is not demonstrably present or if the assessment is disproportionate.