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 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 the zoning ordinance; and
(2) 
The suggested zoning 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 MPC, as amended from time to time, provides for the Zoning Hearing Board to hear substantive validity challenges.
A. 
Procedure. The written substantive validity challenge shall include (1) a written challenge, with explanation, and (2) a site development plan.
B. 
Acceptance or denial. The Zoning Hearing Board shall approve or deny the substantive validity challenge. See the provisions of the MPC concerning relief. If a substantive validity challenge (after any appeals) is finally decided in favor of the applicant, it shall not relieve the applicant from complying with any Township requirements that were not part of the successful challenge.
(1) 
The suggested zoning ordinance amendment by which the alleged deficiency can be cured.
C. 
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.
D. 
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 MPC, as amended from time to time, provides for the Zoning Hearing Board to hear substantive validity challenges.
A. 
Procedure. The written substantive validity challenge shall include 1) a written challenge, with explanation, and 2) a site development plan.
B. 
Acceptance or denial. The Zoning Hearing Board shall approve or deny the substantive validity challenge. See the provisions of the MPC concerning relief. If a substantive validity challenge (after any appeals) is finally decided in favor of the applicant, it shall not relieve the applicant from complying with any Township requirements that were not part of the successful challenge.