SCRANTON — The fate of a proposed drug-addiction treatment center near Lake Scranton may hinge on whether a variance from over 30 years ago for a medical clinic there continues on the property.
Lackawanna County Court Judge James Gibbons heard arguments Thursday in Diamond 307 LLC’s appeal of a zoning rejection of the firm’s plan to put a drug-addiction treatment center in the former Geisinger medical clinic/Elks club building on Moosic Street (Route 307).
Gibbons did not immediately rule on the appeal.
Geisinger was granted a variance in 1986 for a clinic at the building, which is in an R1 residential zone.
During zoning hearings in April and May on Diamond 307’s request for a special exception to allow the treatment center, the Oakmont Park Apartments complex and residents belonging to the Oakmont Neighborhood Association objected to having a treatment center across Moosic Street.
The zoning board’s rejection in June of Diamond 307’s proposal prompted the firm to file an appeal in county court in July.
During a 90-minute-long hearing Thursday in the appeal, Diamond 307 attorney William Jones argued the 1986 variance for a medical clinic remains in effect for the property and thus the treatment center is allowed.
“They (a prior zoning board) gave them a new use, a medical clinic, and that runs with the land” now owned by Diamond 307, Jones said.
Zoning board solicitor Daniel Penetar noted Diamond 307 sought a special exception to put a treatment center in the building. The former medical clinic and the proposed treatment center “are two different things,” Penetar told the judge. “The board found a treatment center is not compatible with the otherwise residential nature of the neighborhood.”
The only issue before the court in the appeal is whether the zoning board erred in handling Diamond 307’s application as a special exception and not as a variance, Penetar said.
Attorney Matthew Barrett, representing the Oakmont neighborhood group, and attorney Ann Lavelle Powell, representing the Oakmont apartment complex, also claimed the variance issue is irrelevant because the firm sought a special exception.
Gibbons asked, “Do I ignore the existence of a variance that runs with the land?”
Barrett noted that during the zoning hearings he questioned whether the applicant needed a variance, but Penetar ruled a special exception was appropriate.
Also during the zoning hearings, Lakeside NEPA, which would operate the treatment facility, described it as a nonhospital, drug-free, inpatient residential treatment center. It also would offer counseling and offsite vocational training for people who first completed detox programs elsewhere. The facility would house up to 30 people for between 30 and 90 days and would employ 11. Proponents, who included recovering addicts, also testified before the zoning board that such a treatment center is greatly needed locally in light of the opioid crisis plaguing the region, state and nation.
Jones claimed the treatment center’s use would be much less intensive than the Geisinger clinic that had 30 physicians.
But Powell argued the center’s 24-7 hours and nature of operations regarding its residents, staffing, lockdowns and curfews make it incompatible in the residential zone.
“It would change the neighborhood,” Powell said.
Jones also claimed the opposition is based on discrimination against disabled people — recovering addicts — and because they would live there during their stays.
Gibbons did not indicate when he expected to issue a ruling. That decision also may prompt a further appeal from either side.
Contact the writer: jlockwood@timesshamrock.com; 570-348-9100 x5185; @jlockwoodTT on Twitter