§ 10916.1. Validity of ordinance; substantive questions
Purdon's Pennsylvania Statutes and Consolidated StatutesTitle 53 P.S. Municipal and Quasi-Municipal CorporationsEffective: February 20, 2001
Effective: February 20, 2001
53 P.S. § 10916.1
§ 10916.1. Validity of ordinance; substantive questions
(1) to the zoning hearing board under section 909.1(a);1 or
(2) to the governing body under section 909.1(b)(4), together with a request for a curative amendment under section 609.1.2
(b) Persons aggrieved by a use or development permitted on the land of another by an ordinance or map, or any provision thereof, who desires to challenge its validity on substantive grounds shall first submit their challenge to the zoning hearing board for a decision thereon under section 909.1(a)(1).
(1) In challenges before the zoning hearing board, the challenging party shall make a written request to the board that it hold a hearing on its challenge. The request shall contain the reasons for the challenge. Where the landowner desires to challenge the validity of such ordinance and elects to proceed by curative amendment under section 609.1, his application to the governing body shall contain, in addition to the requirements of the written request hereof, the plans and explanatory materials describing the use or development proposed by the landowner in lieu of the use or development permitted by the challenged ordinance or map. Such plans or other materials shall not be required to meet the standards prescribed for preliminary, tentative or final approval or for the issuance of a permit, so long as they provide reasonable notice of the proposed use or development and a sufficient basis for evaluating the challenged ordinance or map in light thereof. Nothing herein contained shall preclude the landowner from first seeking a final approval before submitting his challenge.
(5) Based upon the testimony presented at the hearing or hearings, the governing body or the zoning board, as the case may be, shall determine whether the challenged ordinance or map is defective, as alleged by the landowner. If a challenge heard by a governing body is found to have merit, the governing body shall proceed as provided in section 609.1. If a challenge heard by a zoning hearing board is found to have merit, the decision of the zoning hearing board shall include recommended amendments to the challenged ordinance which will cure the defects found. In reaching its decision, the zoning hearing board shall consider the amendments, plans and explanatory material submitted by the landowner and shall also consider:
(ii) if the proposal is for a residential use, the impact of the proposal upon regional housing needs and the effectiveness of the proposal in providing housing units of a type actually available to and affordable by classes of persons otherwise unlawfully excluded by the challenged provisions of the ordinance or map;
(g) Where, after the effective date of this act, a curative amendment proposal is approved by the grant of a curative amendment application by the governing body pursuant to section 909.1(b)(4) or a validity challenge is sustained by the zoning hearing board pursuant to section 909.1(a)(1) or the court acts finally on appeal from denial of a curative amendment proposal or a validity challenge, and the proposal or challenge so approved requires a further application for subdivision or land development, the developer shall have two years from the date of such approval to file an application for preliminary or tentative approval pursuant to Article V or VII.3 Within the two-year period, no subsequent change or amendment in the zoning, subdivision or other governing ordinance or plan shall be applied in any manner which adversely affects the rights of the applicant as granted in the curative amendment or the sustained validity challenge. Upon the filing of the preliminary or tentative plan, the provisions of section 508(4)4 shall apply. Where the proposal appended to the curative amendment application or the validity challenge is approved but does not require further application under any subdivision or land development ordinance, the developer shall have one year within which to file for a building permit. Within the one-year period, no subsequent change or amendment in the zoning, subdivision or other governing ordinance or plan shall be applied in any manner which adversely affects the rights of the applicant as granted in the curative amendment or the sustained validity challenge. During these protected periods, the court shall retain or assume jurisdiction for the purpose of awarding such supplemental relief as may be necessary.
(h) Where municipalities have adopted a multimunicipal comprehensive plan pursuant to Article XI5 but have not adopted a joint municipal ordinance pursuant to Article VIII-A6 and all municipalities participating in the multimunicipal comprehensive plan have adopted and are administering zoning ordinances generally consistent with the provisions of the multimunicipal comprehensive plan and a challenge is brought to the validity of a zoning ordinance of a participating municipality involving a proposed use, then the zoning hearing board or governing body, as the case may be, shall consider the availability of uses under zoning ordinances within the municipalities participating in the multimunicipal comprehensive plan within a reasonable geographic area and shall not limit its consideration to the application of the zoning ordinance on the municipality whose zoning ordinance is being challenged.
(i) A landowner who has challenged on substantive grounds the validity of a zoning ordinance or map either by submission of a curative amendment to the governing body under subsection (a)(2) or to the zoning hearing board under section 909.1(a)(1) shall not submit any additional substantive challenges involving the same parcel, group of parcels or part thereof until such time as the status of the landowner's original challenge has been finally determined or withdrawn: Provided, however, That if after the date of the landowner's original challenge the municipality adopts a substantially new or different zoning ordinance or zoning map, the landowner may file a second substantive challenge to the new or different zoning ordinance or zoning map under subsection (a).
Credits
1968, July 31, P.L. 805, No. 247, art. IX, § 916.1, added 1988, Dec. 21, P.L. 1329, No. 170, § 99, effective in 60 days. Amended 2000, June 22, P.L. 483, No. 67, § 2, effective in 60 days; 2000, Dec. 20, P.L. 940, No. 127, § 2, effective in 60 days.
Footnotes
53 P.S. § 10909.1(a).
53 P.S. § 10609.1.
53 P.S. § 10501 et seq.; 53 P.S. § 10701 et seq.
53 P.S. § 10508(4).
53 P.S. § 11101 et seq.
53 P.S. § 10812-A.
53 P.S. § 10916.1, PA ST 53 P.S. § 10916.1
Current through Act 10 of the 2024 Regular Session. Some statute sections may be more current, see credits for details.
End of Document |