ShareThis Page

Appellate court overturns Fayette County denial of new methadone clinic

Paul Peirce
| Tuesday, March 13, 2018, 5:03 p.m.
Polaris Renewal Services, located along Route 51 South in Perry Township photographed on Tuesday, May 3, 2016.
Evan R. Sanders | Tribune-Review
Polaris Renewal Services, located along Route 51 South in Perry Township photographed on Tuesday, May 3, 2016.

A state appellate court Tuesday reversed a Fayette County judge's recent decision to deny a proposed methadone clinic for drug addicts at a former medical office in North Union Township.

A three-judge Commonwealth Court panel sharply rebuked county Judge Joseph M. George's June 28 decision affirming a 2016 decision by the county zoning board to deny Polaris Renewal Services Inc.'s application for a special zoning exception. The company wants to open a clinic at a former medical office on the 2200 block of University Drive, north of Uniontown.

The county decided the clinic would create on-site parking problems and traffic backups at the Route 119 intersection.

Commonwealth Court Judge Ellen Ceisler in her opinion was particularly critical of the zoning board's evidence that the proposed clinic would “adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding area, specifically due to the traffic.”

“Neither the board or Fay Penn (Economic Development Council, which also objected to the clinic) cites a single part of the record to support this bald conclusion,” Ceisler wrote.

Ceisler noted Polaris promised to create 38 parking spots at the clinic, 20 more than the county ordinance requires. An aerial photograph of the intersection that opponents claimed would cause a “bottleneck” is not supported by evidence, she said.

She said the photograph submitted by opponents showed only four cars passing through “northbound while separated by several car lengths.”

“The record contains no traffic study for the intersection. The trial court's reliance on (the photograph) is particularly problematic given the questionable relevance and reliability of the photograph,” the decision stated.

Ceisler also was critical of testimony from the owner of a nearby business who opposed the clinic plan because of supposed traffic problems. However, the same businessman didn't object when a Speedway gas station was built at the same intersection, the judge said.

Polaris, which operates numerous drug treatment clinics in Pennsylvania, has a clinic in Perryopolis, Fayette County. It proposes the new site would serve up to 300 patients.

After the 2015 closure of another methadone clinic, Addiction Specialists Inc, in North Union, Polaris said its Perryopolis clinic absorbed approximately 400 new patients, according to the court documents.

Polaris claims its second clinic would ease traffic issues at its Perryopolis clinic.

“We conclude that the trial court's finding that the clinic would adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the community because of increased traffic is unsupported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we reverse the order of the trial court,” Ceisler wrote in the 12-page opinion.

Fayette County officials could not be reached for comment on whether they plan an appeal.

Paul Peirce is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at 724-850-2860, or via Twitter @ppeirce_trib.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me