Questions about eCode360? Municipal users Join us daily between 12pm and 1pm EDT to get answers and other tips!
Township of Middle Smithfield, PA
Monroe County
By using eCode360 you agree to be legally bound by the Terms of Use. If you do not agree to the Terms of Use, please do not use eCode360.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
A. 
Jurisdiction. The MPC, as amended from time to time, permits a validity challenge in the nature of a curative amendment to be heard and decided upon by the governing body of the municipality.
B. 
Applicant. The applicant for a curative amendment must be the landowner as defined in the MPC, as amended from time to time.
C. 
Procedure. A curative amendment must be accompanied by a written request that the challenge and proposed amendment be heard and decided as provided in the MPC (validity challenges), as amended from time to time. The request must state:
(1) 
The challenge to substantive validity of this chapter; and
(2) 
The suggested ordinance amendment by which the alleged deficiency can be cured.
D. 
Factors to be considered. In considering the curative amendment and accompanying plan, the governing body must also consider:
(1) 
The impact of the proposal upon roads and other infrastructure;
(2) 
The impact of regional housing needs and whether the proposal is actually available and affordable by classes otherwise excluded by the challenged ordinance;
(3) 
The physical suitability of the site;
(4) 
The impact of the proposed use on the physical site; and
(5) 
The impact of the proposal on the preservation of agricultural and other land uses which are essential to public health and welfare.
E. 
Acceptance or denial. The governing body may deny the request or accept the curative amendment, with or without revision, or adopt an alternative amendment to cure the invalidity. The zoning validity challenge is deemed waived when the governing body adopts an alternative zoning amendment that is unacceptable to the applicant for curative amendment.
A. 
Jurisdiction. The MPC, as amended from time to time, provides for the Zoning Hearing Board to hear substantive validity challenges.
B. 
Examples. Such challenges include, but are not limited to:
(1) 
Spot zoning (special legislation): singling out property indistinguishable in character from surrounding property for the economic benefit or to the economic detriment of the owner.
(2) 
Fair share [Note: Fair share arguments relate to residential uses]: tripartite analysis includes:
(a) 
Whether the proposed parcel of land is a logical area for development and growth;
(b) 
The present level of development; and
(c) 
Whether this chapter creates the result or if there is evidence of a primary purpose to zone out the use.
(3) 
De facto or de jure exclusion.
(4) 
Lack of standards.
(5) 
Ultra vires: not authorized by law or preempted by law.
(6) 
Irrationality.
C. 
Procedure. The written substantive validity challenge shall include:
(1) 
A written challenge with explanation; and
(2) 
A site development plan.
D. 
Acceptance or denial. If the Zoning Hearing Board grants the substantive validity challenge, then the successful validity challenger shall receive site-specific relief in the nature of an approval of his/her proposed plan of development accompanying the challenge, subject to compliance with other Township regulations (e.g., stormwater management).