Section 916.1 of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), 53 P.S. § 10916.1, provides the process for a landowner to challenge a zoning ordinance, zoning map, or provision that allegedly prohibits or unduly restricts the use or development of the landowner’s property.

This article summarizes the two procedural paths, landowner curative amendments under Section 609.1, the separate municipal process under Section 609.2, key deadlines, and recent Pennsylvania data-center disputes.

This article is general information, not legal advice. Case status, deadlines, ordinances, and court decisions change quickly. Project-specific questions should be reviewed with Pennsylvania land-use counsel.

Key takeaways

• A landowner may file a substantive validity challenge with the Zoning Hearing Board or proceed before the governing body with a proposed curative amendment under Section 609.1. These are alternative statutory paths, not a routine dual filing.
• Hearings generally must begin within 60 days of filing, and a decision generally must issue within 45 days after the last hearing. Missing those deadlines produces a deemed denial, not a deemed approval.
• Section 609.2 is a separate municipal curative-amendment process. Once properly initiated, it can limit new landowner challenges on the same or substantially similar grounds while the municipality prepares a cure.
• A protected period follows a successful challenge or approved cure. Filing alone does not create that protection.
• In data-center disputes, the absence of the words “data center” is only a starting point. The real questions include whether existing categories cover the use, whether a realistic approval path exists, and whether site-specific relief is warranted.

Two paths under Section 916.1

Section 916.1(a) says a landowner “shall submit the challenge either” to the Zoning Hearing Board or to the governing body with a curative-amendment request.

Zoning Hearing Board

Under Sections 916.1(a)(1) and 909.1(a), the landowner files a written challenge stating the reasons for the alleged invalidity. If the Board finds the challenge meritorious, it recommends ordinance amendments to cure the defects. The Board does not enact the amendment.

Governing body and Section 609.1

Under Sections 916.1(a)(2) and 909.1(b)(4), the landowner may file with the governing body—such as township supervisors or borough council—a proposed landowner curative amendment under Section 609.1, 53 P.S. § 10609.1.

The proposal is text or map language intended to cure the alleged invalidity, often by authorizing a specific use or development on the landowner’s property. The application must include plans and explanatory material that reasonably describe the proposal. It need not meet preliminary-plan, final-plan, or building-permit standards.

The proposal is referred to the municipal planning agency and, where required, the county planning agency. Public notice must state that ordinance or map validity is in question. The governing body conducts the hearing and may adopt the proposal as submitted, revise it, or adopt an alternative amendment that cures the defect.

In deciding whether to amend the ordinance, the governing body considers statutory planning factors such as public facilities, regional housing needs where relevant, site suitability, environmental impacts, agriculture, and other essential land uses. A later court may invalidate the specific provisions related to the challenge rather than the entire ordinance.

One-challenge rule and proper forum

Section 916.1(i) generally bars additional substantive challenges involving the same parcel until the original challenge is finally determined or withdrawn. A principal exception applies when the municipality later adopts a substantially new or different ordinance or map.

Some applicants have opened both forums at once, but that is a litigation choice constrained by Section 916.1(i), not the ordinary statutory design. A person other than the landowner who is aggrieved by a use on someone else’s property generally must proceed first before the Zoning Hearing Board and cannot use the landowner curative-amendment path to file directly with the governing body.

Deadlines and protected periods

Section 916.1 generally requires:

• hearings to begin within 60 days after filing, unless the landowner requests or consents to an extension;
• a decision within 45 days after the last hearing; and
• public notice identifying that ordinance validity is in question.

The challenge is generally deemed denied if the hearing does not begin on time, the governing body refuses the proposed amendment, the governing body adopts an unacceptable alternative, or the Board or governing body fails to act within 45 days after the last hearing. This differs from the deemed-approval rules that can apply to ordinary variances and special exceptions under Section 908.

Section 916.1(g)’s protected period applies after an approved curative amendment, a sustained validity challenge, or final court action on an appeal from a denial. It does not arise from filing alone.

• If subdivision or land-development approval is still required, the developer generally has two years to file a preliminary or tentative plan. Later zoning or subdivision changes generally may not be applied to the applicant’s detriment during that period.
• If no further subdivision or land-development approval is required, the developer generally has one year to apply for a building permit under the protected conditions.

Municipal curative amendments under Section 609.2

Section 609.2, 53 P.S. § 10609.2, allows a municipality to address its own substantively invalid ordinance. The process is separate from a landowner challenge:

1. The municipality formally declares the ordinance, or specified portions, substantively invalid and proposes to prepare a cure.
2. Within 30 days, it adopts a resolution with specific findings identifying the uses, use class, or ordinance provisions requiring revision.
3. Within 180 days of the declaration, it enacts a curative amendment.

Once properly initiated, the municipality generally need not entertain a Section 609.1 landowner amendment, and the Zoning Hearing Board generally need not provide a report, when the proposed challenge rests on grounds identical or substantially similar to those in the municipal resolution. A 609.2 process does not automatically erase a challenge already filed, so timing and the exact municipal action matter.

Data-center disputes in Pennsylvania

Municipalities may decide where a lawful use belongs and impose health, safety, and welfare standards. They may not totally exclude a lawful use without justification. An ordinance may also face a de facto exclusion claim if the use is theoretically recognized but no realistic district or approval path exists.

Data-center filings commonly argue that:

• the ordinance never names data centers;
• industrial, utility, or catch-all categories do not cover hyperscale campuses, private generation, battery storage, or substations;
• the only district allowing the use is not the applicant’s land; or
• new standards are so restrictive that they amount to exclusion.

Those arguments are contestable. Zoning ordinances are presumed valid, and some boards have found that data centers fit existing industrial or analogous-use provisions or that a later amendment cured the problem. Other disputes turn on whether the applicant is entitled to site-specific relief on a particular parcel.

Detailed filings often include buildings, electrical infrastructure, substations, generation, access roads, and stormwater because the legal question concerns the challenged ordinance as applied to the landowner’s property and proposal. Those plans help evaluate Section 609.1 planning criteria, but they do not replace a later land-development application if the challenge succeeds.

Reported examples

The following summaries reflect municipal statements and reporting available as of mid-September 2026. Each matter remained subject to later hearings, settlements, ordinance amendments, or court orders.

• Ransom Township, Lackawanna County — Scranton Materials LLC: The company proposed a data-center overlay for a roughly 251-acre Newton Road quarry property. Supervisors dismissed the proposal in January 2026, after which the company sued in Lackawanna County Court seeking exclusion-related and site-specific relief.
• East Brandywine Township, Chester County — 500 E. Reeceville Road: The owner pursued a proposed curative amendment before the Board of Supervisors and a separate Zoning Hearing Board challenge. The township was also considering an ordinance allowing data centers as a conditional use in the CS/LI district, making the dual filing subject to Section 916.1(i).
• Penn Forest Township, Carbon County — Mele Brothers Realty: The company challenged the absence of data-center authorization, including in the R-2 district near Route 903 and Maury Road. While the challenge was pending, supervisors adopted a data-center overlay and conditional-use standards.
• Dorrance Township, Luzerne County — Brewster Land Company: Brewster challenged an earlier ordinance as exclusionary. The township later limited data centers to industrial districts, and the Zoning Hearing Board denied the challenge in May 2026. Reporting later described an appeal to county court.
• Clifton Township — 1778 Rich Pike LLC, or Project Gold: The developer challenged the exclusion of data centers, related equipment, and private generation. The township adopted an industrial-district conditional-use ordinance, but later proceedings involved an appeal, a vacated settlement, and separate procedural challenges.
• Upper Mount Bethel Township — Slate Belt Holdings and River Pointe Logistics: Developers proposed a large campus on roughly 754 acres of industrially zoned land and argued for data-center or analogous high-technology treatment. The township considered zoning revisions and negotiated possible zoning and community terms while the challenge remained active.
• Plymouth Township, Montgomery County — former Cleveland-Cliffs mill site: After negotiations over local safeguards broke down, the developer filed a substantive validity challenge. Township officials characterized it as an effort to force approval while acknowledging the need to accommodate legitimate uses and regulate health, safety, and welfare impacts.

Choosing a forum

• The Zoning Hearing Board path can produce recommended amendments, but the governing body generally must enact the text unless a court later grants site-specific relief.
• The Section 609.1 governing-body path places the proposed text before the body that can adopt it, subject to planning review and statutory impact criteria.
• Section 609.2 allows the municipality to draft its own cure after a formal declaration of invalidity and within the statutory deadlines.
• The one-challenge rule, deemed-denial deadlines, and protected period depend on the path used and the municipality’s response.

Conclusion

Sections 916.1 and 609.1 give Pennsylvania landowners a defined way to challenge zoning regulations that allegedly exclude or unduly restrict a proposed use. Section 609.2 gives municipalities a defined way to acknowledge a problem and rewrite the ordinance themselves.

Data-center disputes have renewed attention on these procedures because older ordinances often never contemplated hyperscale computing, on-site generation, or campus-scale electrical infrastructure. Silence in a use table is a starting point, not the end of the analysis. Catch-all provisions, analogous uses, later amendments, and site-specific facts can determine the result.

Because the law and project status can change quickly, review the current ordinance, actual filing, hearing deadlines, municipal record, and any pending court order before relying on a case summary.

Looking for a practical water-quality reference? Order our Drinking Water Guide for Well Water and City Water for a plain-language resource on drinking water questions.

Articles

The Baseline Water Testing Process Is Not Just About Getting a Sample

Other Zoning Related Articles

Other websites

• Know Your H2O
• B.F. Environmental Consultants
• Carbon County Groundwater Guardians
• Keystone Clean Water Team (Donate)

Affiliate disclosure: This article contains affiliate links. If you purchase a product through one of these links, we may earn a small commission at no additional cost to you. We only recommend products we believe in. This helps support our mission to educate consumers about water quality.