Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

GAUDENZIA v. ZONING HEARING BOARD CITY HARRISBURG (08/10/84)

decided: August 10, 1984.

GAUDENZIA, INC.
v.
ZONING HEARING BOARD OF THE CITY OF HARRISBURG, AND NORTH TOWER CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION. NORTH TOWER CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, APPELLANT



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County in the case of Gaudenzia, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Board of the City of Harrisburg and North Tower Condominium Association, No. 4081-S-1982.

COUNSEL

Bruce E. Cooper, with him, Burton D. Morris, for appellant/intervenor.

Michael C. Fox, Duane, Morris & Heckscher, for appellee.

Judges Williams, Jr., Barry and Palladino, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Williams, Jr.

Author: Williams

[ 84 Pa. Commw. Page 482]

North Tower Condominium Association (North Tower) appeals*fn1 from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County reversing the denial by the Zoning Hearing Board of the City of Harrisburg (Board) of the application of Gaudenzia, Inc. (Gaudenzia) for a continuing use of a certain property

[ 84 Pa. Commw. Page 483]

    within the City of Harrisburg as a medical clinic under a previously granted special exception.

On February 21, 1979, the Board granted a special exception to Alcoholism Services, Inc. (ASI) to operate an alcoholism detoxification program at 2835 North Front Street as a medical clinic, a use permitted in that area which is a Special Planned Development Zone under the Harrisburg Zoning Ordinance. ASI provided initial detoxification care and a patient's stay was from three to eight days. Upon ASI's bankruptcy, Gaudenzia agreed to purchase the property.*fn2 Gaudenzia also operates an alcoholism detoxification program; however, Gaudenzia accepts only patients who have already passed through the initial stage of the detoxification process and provides a thirty day program of counseling and education to its patients.

The Board based its denial of a continuing use to Gaudenzia on factual distinctions between Gaudenzia's program and ASI's. The court of common pleas reviewed the findings of the Board and held that, on such findings, it was legal error to deny Gaudenzia's application for a continuing use under the special exception granted to ASI.*fn3

[ 84 Pa. Commw. Page 484]

We conclude that the common pleas court adequately addressed and properly resolved the controlling question in this appeal, i.e., Gaudenzia's right to a continuing use under the special exception granted to ASI.*fn4 Therefore, we affirm the order of the court of common pleas on the basis of the well-reasoned opinion authorized by the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.