## Facts

- A developer submitted a land development plan to the borough manager for a five-unit apartment complex and sought (1) waiver of the usual preliminary/final two-step process and (2) waivers under the stormwater ordinance.
- The governing local ordinance required plans to be filed through the borough manager, stated that no application is “considered as filed” unless it conforms to ordinance requirements, and required borough council to render and communicate a decision within 90 days of filing.
- The borough engineer issued a written review identifying multiple deficiencies under applicable ordinances, treating the submission as under merits review rather than rejected as unfiled.
- The developer maintained the plan was filed on the submission date, making the borough’s 90-day decision deadline February 24, 2009.
- Borough correspondence during the review period treated the plan as pending and referenced a later decision deadline than February 24, 2009.
- Borough council did not approve or deny the plan within 90 days of the asserted filing date.
- The developer claimed the plan was deemed approved; the borough rejected deemed approval, asserting the plan was never “filed” because it did not conform “in every respect” to ordinance requirements.

## Issues

1. Whether the submission was “filed” so as to trigger the 90-day period for municipal action and deemed approval upon municipal inaction.
2. Whether a local ordinance clause conditioning “filing” on complete conformity permits a municipality to avoid the statutory deemed-approval consequence after it has accepted and processed the submission.
3. Whether the municipality’s conduct in accepting, reviewing, and corresponding about the plan bars a later claim that the plan was never filed.

## Decision

- The Commonwealth Court reversed the trial court’s orders denying deemed approval.
- The court held the plan was filed when submitted to the borough manager and processed as an application.
- Because the borough failed to act within 90 days from filing, the plan was deemed approved.
- The borough could not retroactively characterize the plan as unfiled based on nonconformities after treating it as filed and subjecting it to substantive review.

## Legal Principles

- Once a municipality accepts and processes a land development submission as an application, the statutory 90-day decision period is triggered, and inaction within that period results in deemed approval absent an agreed extension.
- Local ordinance language stating an application is not “filed” unless it conforms to ordinance requirements cannot be applied to defeat the deemed-approval protections where municipal officials have treated the submission as filed and under review.
- Substantive deficiencies in a plan must be addressed by a timely written denial (with reasons) within the decision period, not by later asserting that the plan never commenced the statutory timetable.
- Municipal communications and conduct that treat a submission as pending and under review support a finding of filing, especially where there was no timely, explicit notice that the submission was rejected as incomplete or unfiled.

## Conclusion

The court held that the developer’s plan was filed and deemed approved because the borough failed to act within the required 90-day period, and the borough could not avoid that result by later invoking ordinance language to claim the submission was never filed after it had accepted and reviewed it.


Gaughen LLC v. Borough Council of Borough of Mechanicsburg, 128 A.3d 355 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015)