Court Opinion

ID: 9647980
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:57:57.565875+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:55.121279
License: Public Domain

BYER, Judge,
dissenting.
The prohibition by zoning ordinance of all surface mining in R-l Residential Zones in Shenango Township bears an obviously reasonable and substantial relationship to a compelling government interest in protecting the health, sáfety and welfare of citizens in the community and in preserving its environment. Therefore, the zoning ordinance was a reasonable exercise of Shenango’s police powers and not a compensable “taking” of private property under either the federal or the state constitutions.1 To the extent that our previous decision in this case, McClimans I,2 holds to the contrary, it was wrongly decided and should be overruled.
As Mr. Justice Holmes stated, “[government hardly could go on if to some extent values incident to property could not be diminished without paying for every” exercise of the police powers which interferes with or deprives a property owner of the value of existing property rights. Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 413, 43 S.Ct. 158, 159, 67 L.Ed. 322 (1922). Property is held and enjoyed by its owners under the implied reservations of the *479police powers of government, but these powers are not without limits. Id. Pennsylvania Coal states:
One fact for consideration in determining such limits is the extent of the diminution. When it reaches a certain magnitude, in most if not all cases there must be an exercise of eminent domain and compensation to sustain the act. So the question depends upon the particular facts____
... The general rule at least is, that while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking.
Id., 260 U.S. at 413, 415, 43 S.Ct. at 159, 160.
The United States Supreme Court has been unable to establish any “set formula” to determine when a regulation of property under the police powers has gone “too far” so that it will be deemed a “taking.” Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104, 124, 98 S.Ct. 2646, 2659, 57 L.Ed.2d 631 (1978); Comment, Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis: A “Regulatory Taking”?, 89 W.Va.L.Rev. 803, 811 (1987) (Van Damme) (hereafter Comment). This determination must be made upon a balancing of the private and public interests at stake. Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255, 261, 100 S.Ct. 2138, 2141-42, 65 L.Ed.2d 106 (1980). Resolution of “taking” questions are “essentially ad hoc, factual inquiries that have identified several factors — such as the economic impact of the regulation, its interference with reasonable investment backed expectations, and the character of the government action — that have particular significance.” Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass’n v. DeBenedictis, 480 U.S. 470, 495, 107 S.Ct. 1232, 1247, 94 L.Ed.2d 472 (1987) (citing Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164, 175, 100 S.Ct. 383, 390, 62 L.Ed.2d 332 (1979)); Penn Central Transp. Co., 438 U.S. at 124, 98 S.Ct. at 2659.
In the context of zoning regulations, “application of a general zoning law to particular property effects a taking if the ordinance does not substantially advance legitimate *480state interests, ... or denies an owner economically viable use of his land.” Agins, 447 U.S. at 260, 100 S.Ct. at 2141; McClimans I, 107 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. at 554, 529 A.2d at 568 (quoting DeBenedictis and Agins). This, formulation of the “taking” analysis in the context of zoning law should not be viewed as requiring a finding of “taking” whenever a zoning law denies an owner “the economically viable use” of his or her land; rather, diminution in value of property is but one of the factors in the “taking” analysis to be weighed against all other factors. McClimans I elevated diminution of the value of property to the status of sole determining factor, precluding a true judicial balancing of competing public and private interests.
In considering the economic impact of land use regulation upon the property owner, it is “relevant to compare property values before and after the regulation, though such a consideration is by no means conclusive." National Wood Preservers, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Resources, 489 Pa. 221, 236, 414 A.2d 37, 45 (1980) (emphasis added). The United States Supreme Court has recognized that regulation of property not involving actual physical invasion of property but merely proscribing certain uses, may be a valid exercise of the police power, and not a taking, even where a regulation causes property to lose all or nearly all of its value. See, e.g., United States Supreme Court cases compared in National Wood Preservers, Inc., id.; DeBenedictis, 480 U.S. at 488 n. 18, 107 S.Ct. at 1243-44 n. 18 (“While the Court has almost invariably found that the permanent physical occupation of property constitutes a taking, ... the Court has repeatedly upheld regulations that destroy or adversely affect real property interests.” (citations omitted)); Goldblatt v. Town of Hempstead, 369 U.S. 590, 82 S.Ct. 987, 8 L.Ed.2d 130 (1962) (regulation completely prohibiting best use of property, sand and gravel quarrying, is a valid exercise of the police power, and not a taking); Miller v. Schoene, 276 U.S. 272, 48 S.Ct. 246, 72 L.Ed. 568 (1928) (statute ordering property owners to destroy red cedar trees on property to prevent cedar rust *481from contaminating nearby apple trees was a valid exercise of the police powers, and not a taking); Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 8 S.Ct. 273, 31 L.Ed. 205 (1887) (prohibition on use of property to manufacture liquor was a valid exercise of police powers, and not a taking, even though owner’s brewery would thereby be rendered “of little value”).
In National Wood Preservers, Inc., Mr. Justice Roberts stated for our Supreme Court:
The “police power” is one of the “most essential powers of government____” ... It has been variously defined as the power “to promote the public health, morals or safety and the general well-being of the community,” ... or as “the inherent power of a body politic to enact and enforce laws for the promotion of the general welfare,” ... or as a power extending to “all the great public needs,” ... The police power is fundamental because it enables “civil society” to respond in an appropriate and effective fashion to changing political, economic, and social circumstances, and thus to maintain its vitality and order. ... “The police power of the state [must therefore be] ... as comprehensive as the demands of society require under the circumstances.” ... Of necessity, then, the police power is a broad and flexible power. ... Indeed, it is the state’s least limitable power. ...
A state power as broad as the police power inevitably gives rise to tensions between the state and holders of property. Although the police power “may, indeed, seem harsh in its exercise, [and] usually is on some individual, ... the imperative necessity for its existence precludes any limitation upon it when not exerted arbitrarily.” ... Therefore as long as the Legislature exercises that power in a reasonable and nonarbitrary manner, the judiciary will not invalidate the enactment. ...
489 Pa. at 231-33, 414 A.2d at 42-43 (citations omitted).
These observations on the police power and limitations on its exercise apply to zoning ordinances. “All zoning involves a ‘taking’ in the sense that the owner is not completely free to use his property as he chooses, but such a *482taking does not entitle the owner to relief, unless the owner’s rights have been unreasonably restricted.” Miller & Son Paving, Inc. v. Wrightstown Township, 499 Pa. 80, 88, 451 A.2d 1002, 1006 (1982) (citations and footnotes omitted).
In determining whether a property owner’s rights have been “unreasonably restricted” by á zoning ordinance, the following principles apply:
When presented with a challenge to a zoning ordinance, the reviewing court presumes the ordinance is valid. The burden of proving otherwise is on the challenging party. .. .[3]
A zoning ordinance is a valid exercise of the police power when it promotes public health, safety or welfare and its regulations are substantially related to the purpose the ordinance purports to serve. ... In applying that formulation, Pennsylvania courts use a substantive due process analysis which requires a reviewing court to balance the public interest served by the zoning ordinance against the confiscatory or exclusionary impact of regulation on individual rights. ... The party challenging the constitutionality of certain zoning provisions must establish that they are arbitrary, unreasonable and unrelated to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare. Where their validity is debatable, the legislature’s judgment must control. ...
See also Pennsylvania Northwestern Distrib., Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Board of Moon Township, 526 Pa. 186, 190-91, 584 A.2d 1372, 1374 (1990) (“In this Commonwealth, all property is held in subordination to the right of its reasonable regulation by the government, which regulation is clearly necessary to preserve the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the people.”)
*483Shenango’s zoning ordinance prohibiting surface mining affects the three separate estates in land recognized in Pennsylvania — the surface estate, the coal estate and the support estate.4 Restrictions by zoning ordinance “are not per se unreasonable simply because they limit the extraction of minerals.” Miller & Son Paving, Inc., 499 Pa. at 88, 451 A.2d at 1006; G.M.P. Land Co. v. Board of Supervisors of Hegins Township, 72 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 591, 598, 457 A.2d 989, 993 (1983). Coal mining, and surface (or strip) mining in particular, obviously pose significant danger to the health, safety and welfare of a community and to its environment, and although lawful, it is a nuisance or a noxious use of property in relation to its residential neighbors. E.g., DeBenedictis, 480 U.S. at 491-92, 492 n. 20, 107 S.Ct. at 1245-46, 1245 n. 20; see Amerikohl Mining, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Board of Wharton Township, 142 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 249, 258-262, 597 A.2d 219, 224-225, (C.D. 1990, 1991). A municipality does not “take” anything when it exercises its police power to destroy the value of property by abating a nuisance. Stein v. City of Philadelphia, 125 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 225, 229, 557 A.2d 1137, 1139-40 (1989) (citing DeBenedictis)-, Commonwealth v. Barnes & Tucker Co., 472 Pa. 115, 371 A.2d 461 (1977).
In DeBenedictis, the United States Supreme Court upheld a statute of this Commonwealth which required coal extractors to leave in place approximately 50% of the coal beneath certain structures to provide support for the surface struc*484tures and to prevent mine subsidence. The court held that the statute served a genuine, substantial and legitimate public purpose to prevent a perceived threat to the common welfare and to protect the public interest in health, the environment and “the fiscal integrity of the area,” i.e. property values. 480 U.S. at 488, 107 S.Ct. at 1243.
Weighing the public interest against the diminution in value of the coal owner’s property, the Supreme Court found the private interests subordinate, in part because no person has a right to use his property so as to create a nuisance or otherwise harm others. 480 U.S. at 492 n. 20, 21,107 S.Ct. at 1245 n. 20, 21 (“Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedus” or, “Use your own property in such manner as not to injure that of another.”). Thus, even though the regulation would require the members of the coal association to leave over 27 million tons of coal in place, the court held that such diminution of the value of the coal estate was a valid exercise of the police power to abate a nuisance and to protect the public. The court also rejected the argument that the statute was a taking because it completely destroyed one strand of the “bundle” of property rights, namely the “support estate”, a separate property interest in Pennsylvania.5
In Miller & Son Paving, Inc., our Supreme Court upheld a zoning ordinance establishing setback requirements for quarrying operations to two hundred feet from a property line and three hundred feet from a road. The court rejected the property owner’s argument that the setback requirements arbitrarily and unreasonably deprived the owner of 2,685,000 tons of stone worth over seven million dollars, and found the township’s ordinance a valid exercise of the police powers, and not a taking under the powers of eminent domain. The court stated: “If a municipality can create a use zone excluding surface mining altogether, then it surely must be able to impose the lesser burden of requiring setbacks for such use in zones in which it is permitted.” 499 Pa. at 88, 451 A.2d at 1006. See also Willowbrook *485Mining Co. v. Department of Environmental Resources, 92 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 163, 499 A.2d 2 (1985).
McClimans I purported to weigh the public interest against the burden that has been placed on the property owners and the lessee of their coal estates, and concluded that “an ordinance’s exclusion of mining on the surface can amount to a taking of the coal estate below if the ordinance ‘conclusively prevents’ an owner from gaining access to his subsurface property.” McClimans I, 107 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. at 556, 529 A.2d at 569 (emphasis added) (quoting G.M.P. Land Co., 72 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. at 598-99, 457 A.2d at 993-94, relying on Mutual Supply Co. Appeal, 366 Pa. 424, 430-31, 77 A.2d 612, 615 (1951)). If the trial court found on remand that the ordinance “conclusively prevented” the owners of the coal rights from gaining access to their subsurface property, there would be a taking because such an ordinance “denies an owner economically viable use of his land.” McClimans I, 107 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. at 554, 529 A.2d at 568 (quoting DeBenedictis).
In so ruling, our previous decision gave short shrift to the compelling public interests protected by Shenango’s zoning ordinance, and focused too intently on the perceived diminution in value of the coal estate which is only one factor to be weighed in balancing the public and private interests. Consideration of other relevant and important factors leads me to conclude that, on balance, Shenango’s ordinance is a valid exercise of its police powers.
Shenango’s board of supervisors found that “sources of drinking water may be adversely affected by strip mining, that blasting smoke is toxic and could blow off the mining site, that allowing strip mining would devalue homes in the area and that the blasting involved in strip mining could damage homes.” Id. The danger presented constitutes a nuisance, and the ordinance reasonably prohibits this nuisance or noxious use of property in residential neighborhoods.
The zoning ordinance does not authorize the physical invasion of property in its R-l districts, but merely regu*486lates its use.6 The surface property is not rendered valueless nor has the whole bundle of property rights been rendered valueless by operation of the ordinance. To the contrary, the surface owners (who also own the coal estates) continue to enjoy the residential use of their property. Moreover, the board found that strip mining in residential areas would devalue homes in the area.
Importantly, the ordinance did not interfere with any reasonable investment backed expectations of the property owners or the lessee. Penn Central Transp. Co., 438 U.S. at 124, 98 S.Ct. at 2659. The zoning ordinance was enacted in 1967, and the landowners subsequently leased the coal estates to Amerikohl. Although the landowners and Amerikohl might have expected subjectively to be able to secure a curative amendment to the ordinance to permit surface mining, that expectation could not be considered “reasonable” in light of the presumptively valid, existing ordinance banning surface mining.
Balancing the private interests (diminution in value of the coal estates) against the competing public interests in the health, safety, and welfare of the community and in the environment, and weighing all relevant factors in conducting this balance, the scales tip distinctly in favor of finding a valid exercise of Shenango’s police powers.
The ruling in McClimans I to the contrary illustrates Mr. Justice Holmes’ above-quoted comment in Pennsylvania Coal that government “hardly could go on if to some extent values incident to property could not be diminished without paying for” every exercise of the police powers. Some eight days after the trial court, adhering to our remand order in McClimans I, found the “taking”, Shenango amended its ordinance to permit surface mining. Thus, Shenango was judicially coerced to make the Hobson’s choice between straining the public coffers to compensate for future “taking” of the coal estate, or risking the health, *487safety and welfare of its citizens and jeopardizing its environment.
Shenango’s zoning ordinance banning surface mining in residential neighborhoods was substantially and reasonably related to legitimate, indeed compelling, community interests. “Restrictions or obligations imposed on the use or ownership of property to protect the public health, safety or morals from dangers threatened, if reasonably necessary to dispel the particular danger, do not constitute a taking.” Commonwealth v. Barnes & Tucker Co., 472 Pa. at 128, 371 A.2d at 467-68. I would uphold Shenango’s reasonable exercise of its police powers, and would find no unconstitutional taking of property. Therefore, I believe that McClimans I should be overruled — if not by us, then by our Supreme Court.
PELLEGRINI, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.

. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, see Chicago, B. & Q.R.R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, 17 S.Ct. 581, 41 L.Ed. 979 (1897), and Missouri Pacific Ry. v. Nebraska, 164 U.S. 403, 17 S.Ct. 130, 41 L.Ed. 489 (1896), provides: ‘‘nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” U.S. CONST, amend. V, XIV. Article I, section 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides: “nor shall private property be taken or applied to public use, without authority of law and without just compensation being first made or secured." . PA. CONST, art. I, § 10.

. McClimans v. Board of Supervisors of Shenango Township, 107 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 542, 529 A.2d 562 (1987).

3. The property owners have not claimed that Shenango has totally excluded a legitimate use of property throughout the township. Where an ordinance entirely prohibits a legitimate use, the burden shifts to the municipality to show that exclusion is necessary for the health, safety, morals or common welfare of the community. Miller & Son Paving, Inc., 499 Pa. at 89 n. 6, 451 A.2d at 1006 n. 6.

. In McClimans I, we acknowledged that for purposes of deciding taking issues under the federal constitution, the significance of the support estate has been "obliterated,” while the significance of the distinction between the coal and surface estates remains viable. 107 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. at 566-67 n. 4, 529 A.2d at 569 n. 4, (discussing DeBenedictis, 480 U.S. at 500-01, 107 S.Ct. at 1249-50). The United States Supreme Court has declined to assess the diminution in value of each separate strand of the "bundle” of rights associated with property. See also Penn Central Transp. Co., 438 U.S. at 130, 98 S.Ct. at 2662 quoted in Jones v. Zoning Hearing Board of the Town of McCandless, 134 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 435, 440, 578 A.2d 1369, 1371 (1990). As we stated in McClimans I, the coal estates and the surface estates are owned by the individual landowner appellees who have leased the coal estate to appellee Amerikohl.

. See note 4, above.

. “Takings" are more readily found when the governmental interference with property can be characterized as an actual physical invasion. Comment at 811.