The Borough of Oakhaven’s Planning Commission, acting under the authority granted by the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically Article II, Section 209.1, has the power to adopt and amend a comprehensive plan. A comprehensive plan serves as a guide for the future development of a municipality. When a planning commission proposes amendments to this plan, the MPC mandates a specific procedural pathway to ensure public input and legislative approval. Section 209.1(b) of the MPC outlines that proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan must be submitted to the governing body of the municipality, which in this case is the Borough Council. The Borough Council then holds a public hearing, as required by Section 209.1(c), to allow for community feedback. Following the public hearing, the Borough Council, as the legislative authority, is responsible for approving or rejecting the proposed amendments. The planning commission’s role is advisory; it proposes and recommends, but the ultimate legislative power to adopt or reject the comprehensive plan and its amendments rests with the elected governing body. Therefore, the Borough Council’s approval is the necessary final step for Oakhaven’s planning commission’s proposed amendments to become legally effective.

The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically Article VII, governs subdivision and land development. Section 701 of the MPC outlines the requirements for preliminary and final approval of subdivisions. When a developer submits a preliminary subdivision plan for a tract of land in a Pennsylvania township, the township planning agency has a statutory period to review and act upon it. This period is generally 90 days from the date of submission, unless extended by mutual agreement. If the planning agency fails to act within this timeframe, the plan is deemed approved. However, this automatic approval is contingent upon the plan meeting all applicable zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, and other relevant municipal requirements. If the plan is deficient in any of these aspects, the presumption of approval due to inaction may be rebutted. The question probes the consequence of a planning agency’s inaction within the statutory period, emphasizing that such inaction results in approval only if the plan conforms to all existing legal requirements. The core concept tested is the interplay between procedural deadlines and substantive compliance with municipal land use regulations.

The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically Article VII concerning Planned Residential Developments, outlines the procedures and standards for approving such projects. When a municipality receives an application for a Planned Residential Development (PRD), it must follow a specific review process. Section 706 of the MPC mandates that the governing body must approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the application within 90 days of the final submission of all required documentation. If the governing body fails to act within this timeframe, the application is deemed approved. This 90-day period is a critical statutory deadline. The question presents a scenario where a municipality receives a PRD application and a subsequent request for an extension. The key is to understand the statutory timeline and how extensions affect it. Section 706(b) of the MPC allows the applicant to consent to an extension of the 90-day period. In this case, the applicant agreed to an extension. The original 90-day period would have ended on July 15th. The applicant agreed to a 30-day extension. Therefore, the new deadline for municipal action is July 15th plus 30 days, which is August 14th. The municipality’s decision on August 10th falls within this extended period. Thus, the action is timely.

The scenario involves a township in Pennsylvania seeking to annex a portion of an adjacent borough’s land. Under Pennsylvania law, specifically the Second Class Township Code (53 P.S. § 65101 et seq.) and the Municipalities Planning Code (53 P.S. § 10101 et seq.), the process of boundary changes between municipalities is strictly regulated. Annexation of territory from one municipality to another typically requires a petition signed by a majority of the freeholders residing in the territory to be annexed, or by the owners of a majority in assessed value of the land within the territory, followed by a court of common pleas proceeding. Alternatively, mutual agreement between the municipalities, approved by the court, can effectuate boundary changes. Given that the borough has not consented and the township is pursuing annexation unilaterally, the township must adhere to the statutory requirements for involuntary annexation, which often involves a judicial determination of necessity and benefit. The township’s proposed ordinance, without borough consent or a court order, would be procedurally defective. The most appropriate legal mechanism for the township to initiate such a boundary change, absent borough agreement, is through a petition to the court of common pleas, demonstrating the legal requirements for annexation are met. This process ensures that the rights and interests of both municipalities and the residents of the affected territory are considered.

The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically Article VII, governs subdivision and land development. Section 701.1 outlines the requirements for preliminary and final subdivision plats. A municipal planning commission reviews these plats for compliance with the MPC and local ordinances. If a developer fails to obtain approval for a preliminary plat within a specified timeframe after submission, the application is considered withdrawn. In this scenario, the preliminary plat was submitted on March 15th. The MPC, in conjunction with local ordinances, typically sets a maximum review period, often 90 days, for preliminary plats, which can be extended by mutual agreement. Assuming a standard 90-day review period without extensions, the deadline for a decision would be June 13th (March has 31 days, so 31-15 = 16 days remaining in March; April has 30 days; May has 31 days; June has 13 days. Total days = 16 + 30 + 31 + 13 = 90 days). If no decision is rendered by this date, and no extension is agreed upon, the application is deemed withdrawn. Therefore, the preliminary plat application would be considered withdrawn on June 14th.

The core issue revolves around the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically concerning the authority of a second-class township to enact zoning ordinances that regulate the use of land for agricultural purposes within its boundaries. Section 603 of the MPC, 53 P.S. § 10603, grants townships the power to enact zoning ordinances. However, the Pennsylvania Farmland and Food Production Preservation Act, 3 P.S. § 901 et seq., and related case law, such as *Chester County Landowners Association v. Board of Supervisors of East Marlborough Township*, establish limitations on local zoning powers when they unduly interfere with bona fide agricultural operations. While townships can implement zoning to protect public health, safety, and welfare, these regulations must be reasonable and not impose an arbitrary or unreasonable burden on agricultural activities that are essential to the state’s economy. A zoning ordinance that effectively prohibits or severely restricts legitimate farming operations without a compelling justification related to public health or safety would likely be considered ultra vires or invalid as applied. The township’s authority to zone is not absolute and must be balanced against the state’s interest in preserving farmland and supporting agricultural enterprises. Therefore, a blanket prohibition on all agricultural uses, even those conducted in a manner that does not demonstrably threaten public health or safety, would exceed the township’s zoning authority as constrained by state law and policy. The township can regulate nuisance aspects of farming, such as noise or odor, but not ban the fundamental activity itself without a strong, demonstrable public interest.

The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically Article V, governs subdivision and land development. When a developer proposes a subdivision that requires a variance from the municipality’s subdivision regulations, the process involves specific steps. The MPC outlines that the planning agency, after receiving an application for subdivision approval, must submit it to the governing body for action. If the proposed subdivision requires a variance from the subdivision regulations, the governing body, often advised by the planning agency, has the authority to grant or deny such variances. The MPC emphasizes that variances should only be granted when strict compliance with the regulations would impose an unnecessary hardship on the applicant, and the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or the intent and purpose of the regulations. The decision to grant or deny a variance is a discretionary one, based on the specific facts and circumstances presented, and must be supported by findings of fact. The MPC does not mandate that a variance be automatically granted if a hardship is demonstrated; rather, it provides a framework for considering such requests. Therefore, the governing body retains the ultimate decision-making authority, guided by the MPC’s principles.

The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically Article VII, governs the subdivision and land development process. Section 701 of the MPC empowers governing bodies, such as township supervisors or borough councils, to adopt and enforce a municipal subdivision and land development ordinance. This ordinance is the primary legal instrument for regulating how land is divided and developed within a municipality. It sets forth standards for street design, lot configuration, public improvements, and other requirements necessary to ensure orderly growth and protect public health, safety, and welfare. While the MPC provides the overarching framework, the specific details and requirements are found in the individual municipal ordinances. These ordinances are locally enacted and can vary significantly from one municipality to another, reflecting local planning goals and conditions. Therefore, compliance with the adopted municipal subdivision and land development ordinance is paramount for any developer seeking to subdivide or develop land within a Pennsylvania municipality. The county planning commission may offer review and recommendations, but the ultimate authority rests with the municipal governing body and its adopted ordinance. State agencies might be involved in specific contexts like environmental permits, but the direct legal authority for subdivision approval lies at the municipal level.

The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically Article VII concerning zoning, empowers local municipalities to enact zoning ordinances. Section 703 of the MPC, 53 P.S. §10703, outlines the permissible content of zoning ordinances, including provisions for planned residential developments. When a municipality adopts a zoning ordinance, it must follow specific procedures, including public notice and hearings, as mandated by the MPC and the Municipalities Planning Code. A zoning ordinance, once legally adopted, has the force of law within the municipality’s boundaries. Subsequent amendments to the ordinance must also adhere to the same procedural requirements. If a proposed development, like the one in the scenario, is in conflict with the existing zoning ordinance, the municipality can either deny the permit based on the current ordinance or consider an amendment to the ordinance. The question asks about the legal basis for a municipality’s authority to regulate land use through zoning. This authority is derived from the state’s delegation of power through the Municipalities Planning Code. Specifically, the power to create and enforce zoning ordinances, including those that permit or restrict planned residential developments, stems from the state legislature’s grant of authority. The correct answer reflects this fundamental principle of municipal power originating from state enabling legislation.

The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically Article VII, governs subdivision and land development. Section 701 details the powers and duties of the planning commission regarding preliminary and final plan approval. When a planning commission reviews a subdivision plan, it must consider various factors including the adequacy of public facilities, compliance with zoning ordinances and the comprehensive plan, and the impact on the environment and surrounding properties. The MPC mandates that the planning commission must render a decision on a preliminary plan within 90 days of submission, unless an extension is mutually agreed upon. Failure to act within this timeframe can result in the plan being deemed approved. This process ensures that development is orderly, safe, and consistent with community goals. The commission’s review is not merely ministerial; it involves a substantive evaluation of the proposal against established legal and planning standards. The ultimate approval authority for a final plan often rests with the governing body (e.g., borough council or township supervisors), but the planning commission’s recommendation is typically a prerequisite and carries significant weight. The question tests the understanding of the procedural requirements and the scope of review during the subdivision plan approval process in Pennsylvania, emphasizing the statutory timeframes and the nature of the planning commission’s role.

The scenario involves a municipal zoning ordinance in Pennsylvania that restricts the height of buildings in a historic district to 40 feet. A developer proposes a new mixed-use building that would exceed this limit, reaching 55 feet. The municipality’s zoning board denies the variance request. The core legal principle at play here is the deference given to local zoning decisions by Pennsylvania courts, particularly when they are rationally related to legitimate governmental interests, such as historic preservation. While variances can be granted for unique hardships, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate that strict application of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship and that granting the variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. In this case, the developer failed to meet this high burden. The zoning board’s decision is likely to be upheld because the ordinance serves a clear public purpose (historic preservation), and the developer has not demonstrated a hardship unique to their property that is not self-inflicted or a mere economic inconvenience. The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (53 P.S. § 10101 et seq.) provides the framework for zoning and variances, emphasizing that variances should be granted sparingly. The standard for a use variance is even more stringent than for a bulk variance, requiring proof that the property cannot be used in a manner consistent with the zoning ordinance. Here, the height restriction is a bulk regulation, but the principle of hardship remains paramount. The denial is consistent with the established legal precedent in Pennsylvania that prioritizes community character and orderly development over individual development desires when those desires conflict with valid zoning objectives.

The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically Article V, governs subdivision and land development. Section 503 outlines the required contents of a preliminary subdivision plan. A preliminary plan serves as the initial proposal for dividing a tract of land into smaller parcels. It must depict essential information to allow the governing body to understand the proposed layout and its impact on the surrounding area and public services. Key elements include the proposed street system, lot layout, and public facilities. While a definitive statement of compliance with zoning ordinances is crucial for final approval, the preliminary plan’s primary function is to present the overall design concept and its integration with existing infrastructure. The MPC mandates that the preliminary plan include a statement of proposed land uses, which implicitly addresses zoning compliance, but the detailed zoning analysis and explicit confirmation of adherence to all provisions are typically part of the final plan submission and review process. Therefore, a definitive statement of compliance with all provisions of the zoning ordinance is not a mandatory component of the preliminary plan itself, but rather a subsequent requirement for final approval.

The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically Article VI, governs the subdivision and land development process. When a developer proposes a new subdivision in Pennsylvania, the MPC mandates that municipalities review and approve preliminary and final plans. The MPC also outlines the requirements for the content of these plans, which typically include details about street layouts, lotting, open space, and public improvements. Furthermore, the MPC grants municipalities the authority to impose reasonable conditions on subdivision approvals to ensure compliance with local zoning ordinances, comprehensive plans, and public health and safety standards. These conditions can encompass requirements for the dedication of land for public use, the installation of infrastructure such as roads and utilities, and the posting of financial security to guarantee the completion of improvements. The ultimate goal is to facilitate orderly development that serves the public interest.

The core issue in this scenario revolves around the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically concerning the process of subdivision and land development. When a developer submits a preliminary subdivision plan for review, the MPC mandates specific timeframes for municipal action. According to Section 508 of the MPC (53 P.S. § 10508), a municipality has 90 days from the date of submission of a complete preliminary subdivision plan to approve or disapprove it. If no action is taken within this 90-day period, the plan is deemed approved, provided certain conditions are met, such as the applicant not requesting extensions. In this case, the borough council received the preliminary plan on May 15th. The 90-day period would conclude on August 13th. Since the council’s vote to disapprove occurred on August 15th, which is after the 90-day statutory limit, the plan is considered constructively approved by operation of law. This constructive approval is a crucial protection for developers against indefinite delays and inaction by local government bodies. The subsequent attempt to formally disapprove the plan after the statutory period has no legal effect. The explanation of this concept involves understanding the concept of “deemed approval” or “constructive approval” within municipal planning law, which is a mechanism to ensure timely decision-making by local authorities and prevent developers from being held in limbo indefinitely. This principle is designed to balance the rights of property owners and developers with the legitimate interests of the municipality in orderly development.

The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically Article VI concerning Zoning, grants municipalities the authority to enact zoning ordinances. However, this authority is not absolute and is subject to various limitations and principles. One crucial limitation is the doctrine of “spot zoning,” which occurs when a small parcel of land is rezoned in a manner inconsistent with the surrounding zoning classification, typically for the benefit of a particular property owner and to the detriment of the general welfare or the comprehensive plan. Courts generally disfavor spot zoning. In this scenario, the township’s comprehensive plan designates the area for agricultural and low-density residential use. Rezoning a specific 5-acre parcel to a high-density commercial use, without a demonstrable change in conditions or a clear benefit to the public welfare that outweighs the disruption to the comprehensive plan and surrounding uses, would likely be considered invalid spot zoning. The rezoning decision must be consistent with the overall land use goals and policies articulated in the comprehensive plan and serve a legitimate public purpose, not merely private gain.

The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically Article VII concerning subdivision and land development, outlines the procedural requirements for municipalities to review and approve or deny proposed subdivisions. Section 704 of the MPC, 53 P.S. § 10704, details the process for the governing body’s decision on a preliminary or final plan. This section mandates that the governing body must, within ninety days after the submission of the final plan, render a decision. The decision must be in writing and include findings of fact and conclusions of law. If the governing body fails to render a decision within this ninety-day period, the plan is deemed approved. This deemed approval provision serves as a mechanism to prevent undue delays in development projects. The ninety-day period is a statutory deadline, and its expiration triggers the automatic approval unless a written decision is formally issued. Therefore, for the Borough of Harmony Creek’s final subdivision plan submitted on March 1st, the ninety-day period would expire on May 30th. If no written decision is issued by this date, the plan is automatically approved by operation of law.

The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically Article VII, governs the subdivision and land development process. When a developer proposes a new residential subdivision in Pennsylvania, they must submit a preliminary and then a final plan for approval by the local government’s planning agency and governing body. The MPC outlines the requirements for these plans, including provisions for streets, utilities, open space, and stormwater management. Local ordinances, adopted pursuant to the MPC, further detail these requirements, often specifying minimum lot sizes, street widths, and design standards. The process typically involves review by the planning commission, public hearings, and a decision by the municipal council or board of supervisors. If a plan is approved, it becomes the basis for the developer to proceed with construction and for the municipality to accept dedicated streets and improvements. If a plan is not approved, the developer may need to revise it and resubmit, or appeal the decision through administrative or judicial channels. The core principle is that subdivisions must conform to the municipality’s comprehensive plan and zoning ordinances to ensure orderly development and protect public health, safety, and welfare.

The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically Article VII, outlines the process for subdivision and land development. When a municipality approves a preliminary or final plan for subdivision or land development, it can impose conditions. These conditions must be reasonable, related to the public health, safety, and welfare, and directly connected to the proposed development. The MPC does not grant municipalities the authority to impose conditions that are arbitrary, unrelated to the development, or designed to benefit the municipality in a way that exceeds its regulatory powers. For instance, requiring a developer to dedicate land for a public park that is not necessitated by the impacts of the subdivision, or demanding a cash contribution for general municipal improvements unrelated to the development’s impact, would likely exceed the scope of permissible conditions. Conversely, requiring the installation of adequate stormwater management systems, the dedication of rights-of-way for necessary street improvements directly related to traffic generated by the development, or the provision of open space for the benefit of the residents of the subdivision are generally considered valid conditions. The key is the nexus between the condition and the development’s impact or requirements.

In Pennsylvania, the Uniform Construction Code (UCC) governs building standards and administration. When a municipality enacts an ordinance that conflicts with or is more stringent than the UCC, it generally faces preemption. However, the UCC, as codified in the Pennsylvania Construction Code Act (35 P.S. § 7210.101 et seq.), allows for certain local modifications or amendments under specific circumstances. Section 7210.504(a) of the Act permits municipalities to adopt ordinances that are more stringent than the UCC, provided they are adopted after a public hearing and a finding that the stricter standard is necessary to protect public health, safety, or welfare. Furthermore, Section 7210.504(b) allows for local amendments if the UCC does not address a particular subject. The scenario involves a borough enacting an ordinance requiring higher insulation R-values than mandated by the current UCC. This ordinance would be permissible if it meets the criteria outlined in Section 7210.504(a), specifically demonstrating the necessity for public health, safety, or welfare and following the proper adoption procedures, including public hearings. Without these procedural and substantive justifications, the ordinance would likely be preempted by the UCC. The question tests the understanding of this specific preemption exception for more stringent local standards under the Pennsylvania UCC framework.

The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically Article VII concerning Subdivision and Land Development, governs the review and approval of land development plans. When a developer submits a plan for a new commercial center in a township, the MPC mandates a structured review process. This process involves preliminary review, public notice, and ultimately, formal approval or disapproval by the governing body. The MPC, at 53 P.S. § 10701 et seq., outlines the powers and duties of local governing bodies in reviewing such plans. Specifically, 53 P.S. § 10704 grants the governing body the authority to adopt and enforce ordinances for land development. Section 10706 details the requirements for preliminary and final approval, including the submission of plans, the role of the planning commission, and the timeframe for review. The governing body must act on a preliminary plan within a specified period, typically 90 days after submission, unless an extension is mutually agreed upon. Failure to act within this period can result in the plan being deemed approved, provided all other requirements are met. The question hinges on understanding the statutory timelines and the consequences of inaction by the municipal governing body under the MPC. The MPC does not grant automatic approval for simply submitting a plan; rather, it sets a deadline for the governing body’s decision. If the governing body fails to act within the statutory timeframe, the plan is considered approved, assuming no deficiencies exist that would legally preclude approval. The statutory period for preliminary plan approval is generally 90 days from submission, as per 53 P.S. § 10706(c). Therefore, if a plan is submitted on January 1st and no action is taken by March 31st, and assuming the plan meets all legal requirements, it is deemed approved.

The question concerns the authority of Pennsylvania municipalities to enact local ordinances that may conflict with or supplement state law, specifically in the context of environmental regulations. Pennsylvania’s Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), particularly Article VII concerning subdivision and land development, grants significant powers to municipalities to regulate land use. However, this authority is not absolute and is subject to limitations, including preemption by state or federal law and the principle that local ordinances cannot contradict or undermine state statutes. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is the primary state agency responsible for enforcing environmental laws, such as the Clean Streams Law and the Solid Waste Management Act. Municipalities can enact ordinances that provide for stricter environmental protections than state law, provided these ordinances do not conflict with the state’s regulatory scheme or create an undue burden that is preempted. For instance, a municipality could require more stringent stormwater management practices than mandated by the DEP if these requirements are not inconsistent with state regulations and serve a legitimate local purpose. However, if a state law explicitly occupies a field of regulation, a municipality may be prohibited from enacting its own laws in that area. The scenario presented involves a borough attempting to enact an ordinance that would ban a specific type of waste disposal, which is a practice regulated by the state through the Solid Waste Management Act. The key legal principle here is whether the state law preempts the local ordinance. In Pennsylvania, the doctrine of preemption means that if a state law is comprehensive in its regulation of a particular subject, it may prevent local governments from enacting conflicting or additional regulations. The Solid Waste Management Act establishes a framework for the licensing, operation, and disposal of solid waste. A local ordinance that outright bans a method of disposal permitted under state law, without a clear basis for a stricter local standard that doesn’t conflict with the state’s overall scheme, could be deemed preempted. The borough’s ordinance would likely be challenged on grounds of state preemption. The Department of Environmental Protection’s role in licensing and regulating solid waste facilities suggests that the state has occupied this regulatory field to a significant extent. Therefore, a local ordinance that directly contradicts or prohibits a practice allowed under state environmental law, without a specific delegation of authority for such a ban or a clear demonstration that it addresses a unique local hazard not covered by state law, would likely be found invalid. The correct response hinges on understanding the balance between municipal home rule powers and the state’s regulatory authority, particularly in areas where the state has enacted comprehensive legislation. The Municipalities Planning Code, while granting broad powers, does not grant authority to override state environmental regulations where preemption is implied or explicit. The borough’s ordinance, by attempting to ban a state-regulated activity without a specific statutory basis for doing so, infringes upon the state’s established regulatory framework.

The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically Article VII concerning subdivision and land development, outlines the requirements for the approval of preliminary and final plans. A municipality can require a developer to provide financial security to ensure the completion of improvements specified in the approved plan. This security can take various forms, including a certified check, bank guarantee, or a surety bond. The amount of this security is typically determined by the municipality based on the estimated cost of the improvements, often with input from the developer’s engineer. The MPC does not mandate a specific percentage of the improvement cost as a minimum or maximum for this financial security, but rather grants the municipality discretion in setting a reasonable amount that adequately covers the projected expenses. Therefore, the municipality’s determination of the security amount, based on the estimated cost of improvements such as streets, sidewalks, and utilities, is the primary factor.

The question revolves around the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically concerning the process of amending zoning ordinances. When a municipality enacts a zoning ordinance, it must also establish a zoning map. Amendments to this map, which change the zoning classification of a particular parcel of land, are considered “substantive” changes to the ordinance. Under the MPC, specifically 53 P.S. § 10608, substantive amendments to a zoning ordinance require a public hearing before the planning commission and then a public hearing before the governing body (e.g., borough council, township supervisors). Furthermore, notice of the proposed amendment must be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality at least once, not more than 30 days nor less than 10 days prior to the date of the hearing. The governing body must also adopt the amendment by a majority vote. In this scenario, the proposed rezoning of a commercial property to residential is a substantive change to the zoning map, which is an integral part of the zoning ordinance. Therefore, the municipality must adhere to the procedural requirements for substantive amendments, including proper public notice and hearings before both the planning commission and the governing body. Failure to do so could render the amendment invalid.

The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically Article VII concerning subdivision and land development, outlines the procedures and requirements for approving proposed subdivisions. When a developer submits a preliminary or final plan for approval, the municipal governing body has a statutory period to act upon it. For a preliminary plan, the MPC, under Section 704, generally allows 90 days from the date of submission for the governing body to approve, conditionally approve, or reject the plan. If no action is taken within this timeframe, the plan is considered approved by default, provided all other statutory requirements are met. This provision is crucial for ensuring timely municipal decisions and preventing indefinite delays in development projects. The question presents a scenario where a preliminary subdivision plan was submitted to the Borough of Oakhaven on May 1st. The Borough Council failed to take any official action by August 1st. Counting the days from May 1st, May has 31 days, June has 30 days, and July has 31 days. Therefore, the period from May 1st to August 1st encompasses the entire months of May, June, and July, totaling 31 + 30 + 31 = 92 days. Since the statutory period for action on a preliminary plan is 90 days, and the Borough Council exceeded this period without making a decision, the plan is deemed approved by operation of law.

The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically Article V, governs subdivision and land development. When a proposed subdivision plan is submitted to a municipal planning agency, the MPC outlines a strict timeline for review and approval. Section 508 of the MPC dictates that if the planning agency fails to approve or disapprove a preliminary or final subdivision plan within a specified period, the plan is deemed approved. This period is generally 90 days from the date of submission, though it can be extended by mutual agreement. In this scenario, the planning commission received the plan on March 1st. The 90-day period would end on May 30th. Since the commission did not take action by May 30th, the plan is automatically approved by operation of law. The subsequent attempt by the township supervisors to deny the plan after this statutory period has no legal effect. The legal principle at play is that of “deemed approval” or “approval by operation of law,” which prevents indefinite delays and ensures timely administrative action. This provision is crucial for developers to proceed with projects without undue bureaucratic obstruction, provided they have met all substantive requirements of the MPC and local ordinances. The township’s failure to act within the statutory timeframe forfeits its right to disapprove the plan at that juncture.

The scenario presented involves a conflict between a municipal ordinance and a state statute in Pennsylvania. Municipalities in Pennsylvania derive their authority from the Commonwealth and are limited by state law. The principle of preemption dictates that when a state law and a local ordinance conflict, and the state law is intended to occupy the field exclusively, the state law prevails. In Pennsylvania, the Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically Article VII, governs subdivision and land development. Section 703 of the MPC (53 P.S. § 10703) grants municipalities the power to adopt and enforce subdivision and land development ordinances. However, this power is not absolute and is subject to state-level regulations and the overall intent of the MPC. The question asks about the validity of a local ordinance that directly contradicts a provision within the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code concerning the minimum lot width for single-family detached dwellings. If the state statute establishes a clear minimum lot width, and the local ordinance mandates a narrower width, this creates a direct conflict. The state statute, by setting a specific minimum, is generally considered to be preempting local regulation in this particular aspect of subdivision and land development standards. Local ordinances cannot permit what state law prohibits or prohibit what state law permits in areas where the state has legislated comprehensively. Therefore, the local ordinance would likely be deemed invalid to the extent it conflicts with the state statute, as the state law would preempt the local provision. The Municipalities Planning Code aims to provide a uniform framework for land use regulation across the Commonwealth, and allowing local ordinances to directly contravene its provisions would undermine this uniformity.

The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically Article V, governs subdivision and land development. When a developer proposes a new residential community in a Pennsylvania township, the township’s planning commission reviews the preliminary and final subdivision plans. The MPC, at 53 P.S. § 10501 et seq., outlines the requirements for such plans, including provisions for streets, utilities, and open space. A key aspect of this review process involves ensuring that the proposed development aligns with the township’s officially adopted comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. If the proposed subdivision does not conform to these established land use regulations, the planning commission can deny approval. The authority to approve or deny subdivision plans rests with the governing body of the municipality, typically the board of supervisors in a township, based on the recommendation of the planning commission. The process involves public hearings and adherence to statutory timelines for review and decision-making. Failure to comply with the MPC’s procedural requirements can lead to legal challenges. The underlying principle is to ensure orderly growth and protect public health, safety, and welfare through regulated land development.

The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically Article VII, governs the subdivision and land development process. When a municipality adopts a SALDO, it must establish procedures for its administration. A key aspect of this administration involves the review and approval of preliminary and final subdivision plans. The MPC, at Section 709, outlines the timeframes for municipal action on these plans. Specifically, a municipality has 90 days to approve or deny a preliminary subdivision plan after its submission, provided that the applicant has complied with all submission requirements. This 90-day period can be extended by mutual agreement. Failure to act within this statutory period, without a valid extension, results in the plan being deemed approved. This statutory approval is a critical protection for applicants against indefinite delays. The question asks about the consequences of a municipality failing to act on a preliminary subdivision plan within the statutory timeframe in Pennsylvania. The MPC mandates a specific response period, and inaction beyond that period, absent a formal extension, leads to automatic approval. This mechanism ensures timely processing of development proposals and prevents arbitrary delays by local government.

The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically Article VII concerning subdivision and land development, outlines the requirements for the approval of preliminary and final plans. When a municipality fails to act on a submitted subdivision plan within the statutory time limits, the plan is considered approved by default. The MPC, in Section 709(b) (53 P.S. § 10709(b)), specifies that if the governing body or planning agency does not approve or disapprove a preliminary subdivision plan within ninety (90) days after the submission of a complete application, the plan shall be deemed approved. This ninety-day period can be extended by mutual agreement of the applicant and the municipality. However, if no action is taken within this timeframe, the default approval mechanism under the MPC is triggered. This provision encourages timely action by municipal authorities and provides a remedy for applicants facing administrative delays. The approval is not contingent on the applicant’s subsequent compliance with unstated or subsequently enacted ordinances unless specifically provided for in the initial submission requirements or through a valid extension agreement. The question tests the understanding of this statutory default approval provision within the context of Pennsylvania’s land use regulations.

The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), specifically Article VII concerning subdivision and land development, outlines the process for approving or rejecting preliminary and final subdivision plans. When a municipality fails to act on a preliminary subdivision plan within the statutory timeframe, the plan is deemed approved. This deemed approval is a critical procedural safeguard designed to prevent undue delays by municipal authorities. The MPC specifies that for preliminary plans, the governing body has 90 days from the submission date to approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve the plan. If no action is taken within this period, the plan is considered approved by default. This provision encourages timely review and decision-making by local governments, ensuring developers can proceed with their projects without indefinite waiting periods. The legal effect of this deemed approval is that the municipality loses its ability to reject the plan on substantive grounds after the statutory period expires, although it may still impose reasonable conditions consistent with the MPC and local ordinances.