Further…when interpreting the application of zoning categories to occupants of property, the appropriate question to ask when figuring out what category the occupant fits into is what the primary usage of the property is going to be.

In this case, PP provides medical services as defined in the statute, and not services that are only related to health.

Ok, now I really am finished!

Ok, there are some fundamental rules of statutory interpretation that come into play when there is an alleged ambiguity or a conflict over how the statute should be applied.

One of those rules is that the entire statute must be read as a whole. You can't slice out one part in order to take it out of the context of the statute as a whole just to make it say what you want it to say.

Another one of those rules is that when a term in a statute is allegedly ambiguous or there is a conflict of opinion about how it is to be applied, you first look to see if that term is defined in the statute. If it isn't defined in the statute, then you read it in concert with its neighboring terms in order to get a sense of how it should be defined.

Bearing those rules in mind, it's clear that the applicable category for the PP facility is "medical clinic" and not "health related facility".

When you read the statute as a whole, it is clear that "medical clinic" and "health related facility" are two separate terms, meaning two separate things. If the statute's drafters had intended for "health related facility" to mean "medical clinic" then there wouldn't be two separate categories, there would only be one.

Also, the terms that precede "health related facility" limit its possible definitions. Those terms are "social service agencies" and "charitable organizations". Now, while I can't say with 100% certainty what the legislative intent was, I would hazard a guess that those terms are referring to places like Goodwill, unemployment offices, charitable foundations and funds. Because the term "health related facility" is limited by those previous terms, I would hazard a guess that it is intended to refer to places that provide funding and/or referrals for physical or psychiatric help for low-income people. In other words, related to health care, but not providing health care, which is why the statute says "health related facility" and not "health facility".

Class dismissed

You continue to state that, "PP is a medical clinic," yet provide no rational as to why it does not qualify under the health related services use.

So without stating, "it's a medical clinic,” or trying to make an affirmative argument in favor of a medical clinic, how about disproving the argument that the property is being used in a health related services capacity. I'd be interested in hearing that.

What I am saying is that PP is a medical clinic, which is a permitted purpose under both B-2 and B-B district zoning. A medical clinic provides medical services, under the definition that you can find in your own link to the Leutkehans report.

On the other hand, the sub-use category that you are trying to shoehorn the PP facility into is for "Social Service Agencies, Charitable Organizations, Health Related Facilities, and similar uses when not operated for pecuniary profit"

Any first-year law student with a passing familiarity with the rules of statutory construction will be able to tell you that the PP facility is a medical clinic, and fits under that definition.

Not only that, but your lawsuit has SO MANY other problems. I'm wondering if a motion to dismiss has been filed yet? I noticed that you couldn't find a real legal cause of action and were forced to file as a miscellaneous remedy. That cracked me up.

Wouldn't it be great if the Zoning Board had attempted to rule on this? Or if the courts can clear this up.

It is obviously not so obvious to many people.

God Bless,
Roger

No, Charles, it isn't. It's a medical clinic, and falls under "professional office buildings, including medical clinics" in the Zoning Ordinance. That wording may be slightly off, but I'm not downloading the file again right now. "Health related facility" is not the same thing as a "health facility". It suits your argument to conflate the terms, but you're wrong.

As for the rest of your post, well, that's apparently what the judge is going to decide. Like I said, you've got a snowball's chance, but I think it's awesome that you're wasting this much time, effort, and money on it.

Your assertion seems to ignore the fact that not-for-profit Health Related Facility describes the type of entity and the use they engage in (health services), and is therefore more specific than a simple definition of “medical clinic;” as it meets both prongs of this test. Now if PP were a for-profit-company, then they would have to be classified into the more general medical clinic category.

But for the moment, if we accepted your assertion, that PP is a medical clinic—by ignoring the fact they are not-for-profit—then the not-for-profit Health Related Facility category could never be used. This would render that category useless for the purposes of zoning; which is precisely why zoning uses are assigned to the most specific category, and not the most general.