Court Opinion

ID: 9716314
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:34:10.067161+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:43.814138
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Judge Crumlish, Jr. :
I agree with much of what is said by the majority, and I concur in the result reached inasmuch as Appellant *398has clearly failed to carry its burden of proving that the present zoning denies it any reasonable use of its property under either a variance or constitutional theory. To avoid any future misinterpretation or misapplication of this decision, however, I must reiterate what I .consider to be our narrow holding here.
The 1972 amendments to the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code1 (MPC), adding provisions for an application for a curative amendment under Sections 609.1 and 1004, 53 P.S. §§10609.1, 11004, establish two mutually exclusive remedies available to a landowner in the context of an alleged “confiscation” of his property. The utilization of each necessarily depends upon the particular cause of the alleged confiscation. Where the confiscation is allegedly due to unique physical conditions or circumstances, such as the topography of the property involved, thus creating an unnecessary hardship by the strict application of the zoning ordinance, the landowlier’s remedy is to apply to the zoning board for a variance under Section 912 of the MPC, 53 P.S. §10912. Where, however, the property allegedly confiscated does not suffer from unique physical conditions or circumstances, or would not otherwise qualify for a variance under Section 912 due to the nature of the change in zoning requested, the landowner’s only remedy is to apply for a curative amendment under Sections 609.1 and 1004 of the MPC. Township of Neville v. Exxon Corp., 14 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 225, 322 A. 2d 144 (1974). In the instant case, unique topographical conditions of Appellant’s property allegedly resulted in a confiscation. The-zoning board would have had jurisdiction and the power to grant a variance under Section 912, and thus Appellant erred in proceeding for a curative amendment. It cannot be overemphasized, however, that the instant holding in no way limits our decision in Township of Neville v. Exxon
*399Corp., supra, that Sections 609.1 and 1004 are the appropriate means of testing the constitutionality of a zoning restriction on its face as well as applied to a specific property where a variance is unavailable due to the cause of the alleged confiscation or the nature of the rezoning requested.

. Act of July 31, 1968, P.L. 805, as amended by the Act of June 1, 1972, P.L. —, No. 93, 53 P.S. §§10101 et seq.