PA Appeals Court Affirms Zoning Denial where Methadone Clinic was not a Specifically Permitted Use

This post was authored by Amy Lavine, Esq.

In an unreported decision, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the denial of a special exception for a methadone clinic in a case decided in January 2018.

The facility had been proposed for property located in the C-2 Highway Commercial District, but “clinics” were not among the listed property uses that were specifically permitted in this zone. Based on the record evidence, the court concluded that Metro Treatment failed to establish that “clinics” were the sufficiently similar to other uses that were permitted in the district, such as “Business or Professional Offices.” Metro Treatment’s emphasis on environmental and traffic impacts was also irrelevant insofar as these criteria would only be considered in the special exception process if the board had determined that the use would be consistent with the general character of the district.

The court additionally noted that the ordinance text itself suggested that clinics and offices were meant to be treated differently, as offices were permitted in both the C-1 and C-2 Districts, while “Hospitals, Clinics and Nursing Homes” were only listed as conditional uses in the C-1 district. Distinct definitions were also provided for “Hospitals,” “Clinics,” and “Nursing Homes,” as well as for “Business or Professional Offices,” suggesting that the zoning regulations were intended to regulated clinics differently than general commercial uses.

Metro Treatment of Pa., LP v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Shenango, 2018 WL 1709201, 2018 Pa. Commw. Unpub. LEXIS 36 (1/10/18).