Thw Group, LLC v. Zoning Board of Adjustment
86 A.3d 330
Pa. Commw. Ct.2014Background
- THW Group applied in Jan. 2011 for a zoning use permit to operate a methadone clinic as a first-floor medical office at 7900 Frankford Ave., in a C-2 Commercial District in Philadelphia; L&I issued the permit and building permits followed.
- Neighbors learned the clinic would dispense methadone, challenged the permit before the ZBA, and presented expert testimony that methadone clinics differ materially from ordinary medical offices (volume, security, hours, narcotics storage).
- The ZBA (4–1) reversed L&I, holding a methadone clinic is not a permitted use in the C-2 District (not encompassed by "medical office/medical center"), and separately concluded the proposal created a prohibited "multiple structures per lot."
- The trial court, without taking new evidence, reversed the ZBA: it held the proposed methadone clinic falls within the Code’s permitted uses for the "treatment of patients" and as a medical office; it rejected the ZBA’s factual distinction and the multiple-structures theory.
- On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, Neighbors raised (inter alia) claims that the trial court ignored ZBA findings, misinterpreted the Code, relied on extra-record dictionary evidence, and that Applicant lacked standing; the Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a methadone clinic is a permitted use in C-2 | Methadone clinics are not listed or defined in the Code and differ from medical offices; ZBA correctly excluded the use | The clinic provides outpatient medical treatment (medication, counseling, testing) and fits the Code’s broad allowance for "treatment of patients" and medical offices | Court: Methadone clinic qualifies as a medical office/treatment of patients and is permitted in C-2 (legal question of ordinance interpretation) |
| Whether the fact methadone clinics did not exist when Code was written excludes them | Because methadone clinics weren’t contemplated, they cannot be shoe-horned into Code categories (relying on Boni) | Code language is broad; no pending amendment or exclusion in Philadelphia’s Code indicating a different legislative intent | Court: Boni is distinguishable; absence of historical specific reference does not preclude treating the use as a medical office |
| Whether ZBA’s factual findings (expert testimony) bind the trial court absent new evidence | ZBA’s factual findings about differences between clinic and medical office must be accepted by the trial court | The expert was not a zoning expert; defining "medical office" is legal/statutory—court may interpret | Court: Trial court did not err; it resolved the legal question and was not bound to adopt the non-zoning expert’s legal characterization |
| Whether treating methadone clinics differently violates federal law (ADA/Rehab Act) | Not directly argued as primary—ZBA treated use as non-permitted | Municipalities may not subject methadone clinics to different zoning standards; Third Circuit has held singling out methadone clinics invalid under ADA/Section 504 | Court: Trial court correctly noted federal law forbids discriminatory zoning treatment of methadone clinics; supports treating them as ordinary medical clinics |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomason v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Twp. of Radnor, 26 A.3d 562 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (importance of definitions in permissive zoning codes)
- In re Appeal of Costco Wholesale Corp., 49 A.3d 535 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (zoning uses must fit the ordinance’s permitted categories; ‘‘indoor facility’’ limitation prevented accessory gas station)
- New Directions Treatment Servs. v. City of Reading, 490 F.3d 293 (3d Cir. 2007) (zoning rules singling out methadone clinics facially discriminatory under ADA and Rehabilitation Act)
- Freedom Healthcare Servs., Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of City of New Castle, 983 A.2d 1286 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (relying on New Directions to reject differential treatment of methadone clinics)
- Discovery House, Inc. v. Metro. Bd. of Zoning Appeals of Marion Cnty., 701 N.E.2d 577 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (methadone clinic falls within permitted physician/medical office language)
- Comprehensive Addiction Treatment Servs., Inc. v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 795 P.2d 271 (Colo. App. 1989) (methadone facility qualifies as an "office" and is permitted under zoning ordinance)