Airport Professional Office Center 100 Condominium Ass'n v. Zoning Hearing Board
2011 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 218
Pa. Commw. Ct.2011Background
- The Association appeals a ZHB decision regarding Dr. Jian's use of his Moon Township office for treating opioid addicts with Buprenorphine.
- Dr. Jian operates a medical practice at 1150 Thorn Run Road, Suite 101, in a BP zoning district that does not permit methadone treatment facilities.
- The Township issued an occupancy permit denial/conditioned on not administering drug treatments for opioid addicts after Dr. Jian disclosed plans to treat such patients with Buprenorphine.
- The ZHB held that Buprenorphine is similar to methadone and that administering it from a medical office is not a permitted BP use, though prescribing it was allowed.
- The Association argued the Code does not define 'administer' and that Dr. Jian was administering Buprenorphine; it contends the ZHB misapplied the statute and relied on improper distinctions.
- The trial court affirmed the ZHB, and the Association appeals to Commonwealth Court seeking reversal; the Court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ZHB erred in finding Jian was not administering Buprenorphine | Association argues 'administer' includes in-office drug delivery as part of treatment. | Jian's conduct did not constitute administration; administration requires on-site dispensing per the Code. | No error; substantial evidence supports that Jian did not administer Buprenorphine at the office. |
| Whether Jian's office use constitutes a medical office or a methadone treatment facility | Facility functions as addiction treatment; Buprenorphine is similar to methadone, fitting a methadone facility under the Code. | Record and expert show it is a medical office, not a methadone treatment facility; daily patient load and activities align with medical office use. | Affirmed; the use is a medical office, not a methadone treatment facility. |
Key Cases Cited
- Caln Nether Co., L.P. v. Bd. of Supervisors of Thornbury Twp., 840 A.2d 484 (Pa.Cmwlth.2004) (undefined terms given plain meaning in zoning context)
- Martin v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 588 Pa. 429 (2006) (plain language as indication of legislative intent)
- Readinger v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (Epler Masonry), 855 A.2d 952 (Pa.Cmwlth.2004) (interpretation of 'and' to mean 'or' in some statutory contexts)
- McIntyre v. Bd. of Supervisors of Shohola Twp., 150 Pa.Cmwlth. 15 (1992) (role of deference to zoning officer; standard of review)
- In re Rural Route Neighbors, 960 A.2d 856 (Pa.Cmwlth.2008) (record-based evidentiary review in zoning matters)
- Richardson v. Orlowski, 2010 WL 2825703 (D.Conn.2010) (illustrative authority cited in note on interpretive approaches)