Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/05/2014

Home

Zoning Bulletin April 25, 2014 Volume 8 1 Issue 8 methadone clinic was a permitted use in a zoning district even though a methadone clinic was not a specifically mentioned use in the zoning code. The Background/Facts: In January 2011, THW Group, LLC ("THW") applied for a zoning use peiurit "for a medical office for the treatment of patients in a building located in a C-2 Commercial District in the city of Phil- adelphia (the "City"). The City's Licenses and Inspections ("L & I") issued a permit for the proposed use. Thereafter, Domenick Parris, Melissa Casey, Patti Vaughn, Linda Lewis, and Lori Prete (the "Neighbors") learned that THW's proposed medical office was a methadone clinic. The Neighbors challenged the issuance of the permit to THW on the basis that a methadone clinic was not a permitted use under the City's zoning code. The Neighbors expressed concern regarding traffic conges- tion and the proximity of residences, a grade school, a day care and churches. They also had security concerns. The City's Zoning Board of Adjustment (the "ZBA") determined that the L & I had erred in granting THW's permit application for the methadone clinic. The ZBA noted that medical offices were permitted in the C-2 zone but found that there were significant differences between a methadone clinic and a medi- cal office. As such, the ZBA concluded that the methadone clinic did not fall within any of the authorized use categories in the C-2 District. THW appealed. The trial court reversed the ZBA's decision. The trial court noted that the Code permitted the use of a property in the C-2 District for the "treatment of patients" and for medical centers and medical offices. The court found that a methadone clinic was a medical office for the treatment of patients and, therefore, a permitted use in the C-2 District. The Neighbors appealed. DECISION: Judgment of trial court affirmed. The Connnonwealth Court of Pennsylvania held that a methadone clinic was a permitted use in the C-2 District even though a methadone clinic was not a specifically mentioned use in city zoning code. On appeal, among other things, the Neighbors had argued that there were "stark differences" between methadone clinics and medical offices, including the fact that methadone clinics see a large volume of patients and warehouse large volumes of narcotics. The appellate court rejected this argument. Look- ing to the plain meaning of the language of the zoning code and the definition of "clinic," the court concluded that THW's proposed methadone clinic use `°clearly qualifie[d] as a use of the property for the `treatment of patients,' and a medical office, both of which [were] specifically permitted in the C-2 District." The Neighbors had also contended that since methadone clinics did not ex- ist at the time the City's zoning code had been written, the legislative body had not intended that the inclusion of "medical offices" as a permitted use con- template a methadone treatment facility that would serve such a high volume of patients. The appellate court again disagreed. The court noted that the zon- ing code did not include a definition of "clinic" or "medical office" that would exclude the proposed methadone clinic use. The court further emphasized that since federal law (the Americans with ©2014 Thomson Reuters 3