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:
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:
(3)
De facto or de jure exclusion.
(4)
Lack of standards.
(5)
Ultra vires: not authorized by law or preempted by law.
(6)
Irrationality.
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).
