Appeals from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County in the case of Wallace Putkowski v. City of Scranton and the Zoning Hearing Board of the City of Scranton, No. 165 September Term, 1979, and in the case of Wallace Putkowski v. Emil Agnone, Superintendent of Inspections and Licensing of the City of Scranton, No. 283 Civil, 1980.
Victor F. Cavacini, for appellant.
Peter P. Tayoun, Assistant Solicitor, for appellees.
President Judge Crumlish and Judges Blatt and Craig, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig. Judge Wilkinson, Jr. did not participate in the decision in this case.
[ 58 Pa. Commw. Page 605]
Wallace Putkowski (applicant) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County affirming an adjudication of the City of Scranton Zoning Board of Appeals (board) which treated applicant's request for a certificate of nonconforming use as an application to expand or change an existing nonconforming use and denied the request.
The applicant operates a junkyard on property located in a C-1 Community Commercial District, under the City of Scranton Zoning Ordinance enacted in 1965. Although junkyards are not permitted uses in the C-1 district, the board agreed that applicant's predecessors in title, a Mr. Baiderman and a Mr. Milewsky before him, operated the junkyard at its present location before the ordinance was enacted, so that it became a lawful nonconforming use in the C-1 district.
The applicant's predecessors processed junked autos at the rate of five or six per day, primarily by disassembling them manually, and also by crushing
[ 58 Pa. Commw. Page 606]
through the use of a crane with a "big drop." On April 20, 1979, the applicant applied for a certificate of nonconforming use. However, while waiting for a decision on that application, the applicant began operating at the yard his portable mechanical car crusher, which, as the board found, he had previously brought to the yard and operated on four occasions over a seven-year span to reduce Mr. Baiderman's inventory.
Because the mechanical car crusher enabled the applicant to process seventeen autos in seventy minutes, the board treated the applicant's request, to the extent that it involved the mechanical car crusher with additional buildings and associated equipment, as involving a new use and therefore denied it.
Because he is not seeking to extend his use over additional property, the applicant first contends that, under our Supreme Court's holding in Cheswick Borough v. Bechman, 352 Pa. 79, 42 A.2d 60 (1945), his introduction of the mechanical car crusher and other additions would be a proper extension of his nonconforming use by means of employing a more modern instrumentality. However, we are constrained to follow our holdings in Township of Kelly v. Zoning Hearing Board of Kelly Township, 36 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 509, 388 A.2d 347 (1978) and Casilio and Sons Co. v. Zoning Hearing Board of Stroud Township, 26 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 608, 364 A.2d 969 (1976), in which this court held that a change in method and quantity of production can be so vast as to constitute a new use. The ...