 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
White Deer Run10/12/2005
White Deer Run, Inc., t/a White Deer Run At Blue Mountain (Appellant), appeals the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County (trial court), dated April 11, 2005, which affirmed the order of the Zoning Hearing Board of Lynn Township (Zoning Board). We now affirm.
Appellant is the owner of property (the Property) consisting of approximately seven (7) acres, located at 8284 Leaser Road, Kempton, in Lynn Township (the Township), Lehigh County. The Property is situated in the Township's C-Conservation Zoning District and EP-Environmental Protection Area. Appellant purchased the Property for approximately $740,000.
Prior to its acquisition by Appellant, the Property had been operated by its previous owner, Robert Nilon, from 1993 through 2003, as an alcohol rehabilitation facility known as Blue Mountain House. Mr. Nilon operated the alcohol rehabilitation facility pursuant to variances and other zoning relief as set forth in three decisions of the Zoning Board. Appellant now seeks to operate a facility on the Property that would offer drug and alcohol rehabilitative services together with detoxification and the dispensing of medication to residents of the facility. This represents an expansion or higher level of service than that previously provided by Blue Mountain House.
Prior to purchasing the Property, Appellant, without the assistance of counsel, obtained and reviewed the prior decisions of the Zoning Board, which granted zoning relief to Mr. Nilon for the facility he operated at the Property. Appellant also had some conversations with the Zoning Officer of the Township. Appellant did not check the zoning status or review the Lynn Township Zoning Ordinance (Zoning Ordinance). Subsequent to purchasing the Property, Appellant submitted two applications for permits to the Township. First, Appellant submitted a business permit application, dated June 1, 2004, which resulted in a business/zoning permit being issued to Appellant on that same date. The use proposed in the application was "DETOX/REHAB/IN-PATIENT/NON- HOSPITAL." Second, Appellant submitted an application for building alteration or repair, dated July 14, 2004. Attached to the application were various worksheets, floor plans and a narrative description of the proposed work, all of which contained multiple references to the medical supply room, medical examination room and detoxification facilities which were proposed as part of the renovations. A permit was issued by the Township on July 28, 2004.
Thereafter, Appellant began the process of making improvements and renovations to the Property to accommodate the proposed use. Renovations included the conversion of the third floor of the main structure into a dedicated area for clients going through detoxification. Appellant installed a specialized security system with individual cameras to monitor residents undergoing detoxification, installed additional bathrooms in the immediate vicinity of the rooms housing detoxification residents in order to accommodate the residents in their impaired physical condition, purchased equipment for medical examination rooms and purchased a medical supply cart and a supply of medications. It appears that while the renovations to the main structure on the Property exceeded $95,000, the funds expended for the renovations and equipment specific to the detoxification services approximated $30,000.
On September 10, 2004, the Township informed Appellant that it was prohibited from (i) treating patients at the facility whose primary diagnosis was drug dependency rather than alcohol dependency, (ii) conducting detoxification treatment at the facility and (iii) dispensing medication at the facility to patient
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|