## Facts

- Robert and Susan Mumma and other petitioners filed a petition in the Court of Common Pleas of York County to incorporate the “Borough of Chilton” from land within Monaghan Township.
- The proposed borough consisted of about 492 acres along the Yellow Breeches Creek and was largely undeveloped, apart from the Mummas’ residence (a large home) and a few tenant houses.
- At the time of the petition, the only residents within the proposed borough were Robert and Susan Mumma and their child.
- Petitioners planned a golf course and a surrounding high-income residential development of roughly 350 units, but the timing and completion of the project were uncertain.
- Objectors, including Monaghan Township and neighboring landowners Anne G. Miller and G. Thomas Miller, filed written objections to incorporation.
- Under Section 202 of The Borough Code, the trial court appointed a Borough Advisory Committee to investigate and report on the desirability of incorporation.
- The committee recommended denial, finding the development plans too speculative and concluding the proposed borough would likely face practical and legal difficulties for an indeterminate period, including compliance with the Borough Code and Pennsylvania Election Code.
- The trial court rejected the committee’s recommendation, believed the statutory factors were satisfied, and granted the petition for incorporation; the incorporation vote that followed favored incorporation.
- Monaghan Township and the Millers appealed the order granting incorporation to the Commonwealth Court.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by treating Section 202 of The Borough Code as effectively requiring incorporation once it found the statutory factors satisfied.
2. Whether the trial court failed to properly consider the Borough Advisory Committee’s adverse findings on desirability and the proposed borough’s ability to function and comply with legal requirements.

## Decision

- The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania reversed the order of the Court of Common Pleas granting the petition to incorporate the Borough of Chilton.
- The court held the trial court misunderstood and failed to exercise its discretionary role under Section 202 when it approved incorporation despite the committee’s recommendation and serious viability concerns.

## Legal Principles

- Under Section 202 of The Borough Code, a trial court’s function in a borough-incorporation petition is discretionary, not ministerial; satisfaction of statutory phrasing does not automatically compel approval.
- The statutory requirement for a Borough Advisory Committee reflects legislative intent that a court receive and weigh a developed record on desirability; while not binding, the committee’s findings must be meaningfully considered.
- In determining “desirability,” a court may consider whether the proposed borough has the present ability to operate as a municipality, including whether it can meet Borough Code governance obligations and Pennsylvania Election Code requirements given the number of residents and electors.
- A court may consider whether incorporation rests on uncertain future development rather than an existing municipal community, and may consider public-interest concerns implicated by creating an extremely small, high-income enclave.
- A trial court’s misapprehension of the scope of its discretion—such as believing it is constrained to approve once it checks statutory boxes—constitutes an abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

Because the proposed Borough of Chilton consisted of largely undeveloped land with only three residents and relied on uncertain future development, and because the Borough Advisory Committee found incorporation undesirable and likely noncompliant with municipal and election-law requirements for an indeterminate period, the Commonwealth Court reversed the trial court’s approval after concluding the trial court mistakenly treated the statute as effectively mandatory and did not properly exercise its discretion.


In re Incorporation of the Borough of Chilton, 646 A.2d 13 (1994)