Final Report of the Pennsylvania Chapter of APA MPC Task Force
Executive Summary

The Final Report of the Pennsylvania Chapter of APA MPC Task Force (October 2002; revised June 2003) is probably the most thorough and comprehensive examination of the Municipalities Planning Code from a planning perspective since its adoption in 1968.

In Part I of the Report the stage is set for an assessment of the MPC’s current provisions, suggested new elements, and the need, ultimately, for its total revision. An historical perspective is provided of the genesis and evolution of the MPC over the last three and a half decades. Several examples illustrate how the Code has been eroded by the influence of special interest groups and actions of the Legislature causing it to become the seriously flawed document that it now is, such as:

The tendency of the General Assembly to enact vague standards, using such words as reasonable and unreasonable, which can only be determined by litigation.

Internally inconsistent definitions, such as “preservation” and “protection,” which engender contention and are difficult, as well potentially costly, to resolve.

Imposing “one-size fits all solutions” such as by prescribing standards for natural resources, home business and others, that apply in all municipalities regardless of their size, circumstances, or practicality.

Overly prescriptive and costly regulatory procedures which insure they will not be extensively used, such as the authority granted by Article V-A.

Amendments which protect or grant an advantage to certain activities, thereby allowing them to be excluded from the planning of the total community, such as natural resource exploitation and agricultural operations.

Unnecessary specificity, such as the authority for planned residential and traditional neighborhood development, which stifles innovation and creativity.

Part I concludes by pointing to the Pennsylvania Chapter of APA as the only legitimate entity that can speak for planning and the MPC in the Commonwealth. A series of recommendations are provided to aggressively address the goal of speaking out for planning.

The Task Force recognized that if Pennsylvania Chapter of APA is to keep its rightful role as “keeper of the flame” for planning, a focus for its efforts is essential. Part II provides this guidance in a Statement of Pennsylvania Chapter of APA Planning Principles. The twenty-one elements encompass a wide-ranging view of planning and what Pennsylvania Chapter of APA stands for. The Report has both a summary of the Principles and an extensive discussion of the planning values they are based on. These Principles would purport to keep Pennsylvania Chapter of APA on track in evaluating legislation and taking positions on various matters affecting planning.

Part III of the Task Force Final Report consists of six specific recommendations to the Pennsylvania Chapter of APA Board of Directors and Legislative Committee for future actions pertaining to planning and the MPC, as follows:

Recommendation 1:
Re-creation of the State Planning Board, and re-establishment of a professionally staffed State Planning Office.

Recommendation 2:
Establishment by Pennsylvania Chapter of APA of a continuous process for revising the MPC, and for keeping it current.

Recommendation 3:
Development of a process for educating legislators and their staffs about planning with the goal of returning the MPC to its intended purpose of being enabling, rather than prescriptive, planning legislation.

Recommendation 4:
Targeting educational opportunities for all relevant groups including: planning professionals, paraprofessional and technical planning aides, elected and appointed officials, and the general public.

Recommendation 5:
Amend the MPC to call for the training and credentialing of professional planners, and elected and appointed local and county officials.

Part IV of the Task Force Report introduces a new element into Pennsylvania planning, a form of regulation known as a Unified Development Ordinance, or UDO. Such a regulation combines zoning and subdivision and land development regulatory authority. Municipalities could retain their current procedures, but those who chose the new form could streamline the regulatory process and make it more ‘user friendly.’ Ordinances of this type are allowed in several other states and have been particularly useful in introducing small communities to planning and land use regulations in a way they can administratively and politically support. A draft of a proposed amendment to the MPC authorizing Unified Development Ordinances is in this section.

Part V consists of the review and suggested revisions to selected provisions of the MPC, including those from Article III Comprehensive Plan, Article V Subdivision and Land Development, Article V-A Municipal Capital Improvement, Article IX Zoning Hearing Board and Other Administrative Procedures, and Article XI Intergovernmental Cooperative Planning. The Task Force developed criteria to differentiate its suggestions as either first or second priority revisions. The first priority revisions are summarized as follows:

1. Reinstate provisions permitting joint planning commissions (omitted in amended Article XI in 2000).
2. Require adoption of municipal comprehensive plans (making them equivalent to county and multi-municipal plans with respect to adoption).
3. Removal of Section 303(c) (relieving governing bodies from acting in accordance with comprehensive plans).
4. An alternate (simplified) definition for “land development.”
5. Permit an optional “sketch plan” (with additional time for review).
6. Clarify position/responsibility of counties with regard to financial security in subdivision and land development process.
7. Alternative procedure for calculating transportation impact fees; a fixed ‘not to exceed’ impact fee amount, and simplified procedures and administration.
8. Zoning ordinance adoption procedures (overcoming procedural issues raised in recent PA court decisions).
9. Permit ‘conditional rezoning’ (rezoning with predetermined applicant responsibilities).
10. Expand the use of zoning hearing board alternate members.
11. Flexibility with respect to county zoning ordinance administration.

The Final Report also includes an appendix section, Detailed Statement of Pennsylvania Chapter of APA Planning Principles and Enhancing the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code. Not included in the formal report, but available for inspection, is a thorough technical review of Article V Subdivision and Land Development, to correct errors and inconsistencies, and a re-formatting of Article VI, Zoning, without substantive changes.

The Pennsylvania Chapter of APA MPC Task Force members:

Update
The Task Force’s first recommendation pertaining to the State Planning Board is being acted upon. As of Fall 2003, new members are being named to the State Planning Board. No action is being taken on the second part of the recommendation having to do with a professionally staffed state office of planning.

The Pennsylvania Chapter of APA Board of Directors is implementing Recommendation 2 regarding the continuous review and updating of the MPC. The MPC Task Force has been re-established as a continuing sub-committee of the Pennsylvania Chapter of APA Legislative Committee. It is now referred to as the MPC Subcommittee.

The problem identified as number 8 in the list of first priority legislative actions was resolved by the passage of Act 215 of 2002. This Act amended Title 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure) to include the term “intended effective date” thereby establishing a definitive time of ordinance adoption, and eliminated the possibility of an alleged defect in the process of zoning ordinance enactment. This Act did not directly amend the MPC.

February 2004