The Devil Is in the Details (and the Deemed Approval Deadlines)
To avoid luxurious lolling by local governments, the Legislature included mandatory deadlines in the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, 53 P.S. Section 10101 et seq. (MPC), which governs municipal regulation of zoning, subdivision and land development within the commonwealth. The MPC sets forth strict requirements for when and how municipalities make decisions on land use applications, in addition to how they communicate those decisions to the applicant.
June 20, 2024 at 11:20 AM
8 minute read
Noted wordsmith Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Michael Musmanno articulated the rationale for the "deemed approval" concept in Pennsylvania land use law noting: "Without this kind of coercive determination, a board could effectively prevent the erection of needed structures through the simple process of luxurious lolling while spiders of inattention spin webs of indifference over pending public problems." To avoid luxurious lolling by local governments, the Legislature included mandatory deadlines in the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, 53 P.S. Section 10101 et seq. (MPC), which governs municipal regulation of zoning, subdivision and land development within the commonwealth. The MPC sets forth strict requirements for when and how municipalities make decisions on land use applications, in addition to how they communicate those decisions to the applicant. A failure to comply with these requirements may result in a deemed approval of the underlying application.
Within days of each other, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court issued two reported opinions that affirmed the deemed approvals of land use applications. CRG Services Management v. Lowhill Township, No. 1091 C.D. 2023 (Pa. Cmwlth. June 3, 2024) (deemed approval of a land development plan for a warehouse because the township's denial letter was inadequate) and Folk v. Mifflin Township Zoning Hearing Board, 969 C.D. 2023 (Pa. Cmwlth. June 5, 2024) (deemed approval for a variance to operate a wedding venue on a farm because the zoning hearing board did not commence the public hearing within 60 days of application's submission). In light of these cases, this article provides a brief overview of key MPC provisions which could result in a deemed approval of a land use application.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPa. Supreme Court Unanimously Upholds Pa. Statutes Restricting the Ability of Municipalities to Regulate Firearms
7 minute readRight-to-Know Law Policy Update in Wake of Anonymous FOIA Buddy Record Requests
9 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Settlement Allows Spouses of U.S. Citizens to Reopen Removal Proceedings
- 2CFPB Resolves Flurry of Enforcement Actions in Biden's Final Week
- 3Judge Orders SoCal Edison to Preserve Evidence Relating to Los Angeles Wildfires
- 4Legal Community Luminaries Honored at New York State Bar Association’s Annual Meeting
- 5The Week in Data Jan. 21: A Look at Legal Industry Trends by the Numbers
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250