IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In Re: Application of Sunflower : 

Farm, LLC : No. 815 C.D. 2016

: Argued: December 15, 2016

Appeal of: Sunflower Farm, LLC :

BEFORE: HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge

HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE WOJCIK FILED: March 28, 2017

Sunflower Farm, LLC (Applicant)1appeals the order of the Bucks 

County Court of Common Pleas (trial court) which affirmed the decision of the 

Lower Makefield Township (Township) Zoning Hearing Board (Board) denying

its application for use and dimensional variances under the Township’s Zoning 

Ordinance2necessary to use the property as an equine hospital. We affirm.

 

1 Applicant is a Pennsylvania limited liability corporation with two members: 

veterinarians Dr. Amy Bentz and Dr. Brad Holmsten. Bentz treats large animals such as horses 

and is the corporation’s principal. 

2

Section 200-97 of the Township’s Zoning Ordinance states:

A. The Board shall hear requests for variances where it is alleged 

that the provisions of this chapter inflict unnecessary hardship on 

(Footnote continued on next page...)
2

Applicant is the equitable owner of the approximately 5-acre property 

located on Mirror Lake Road in the Township’s R-1 Residential-Low Density 

zoning district. The configuration of the property resembles a “fat T,” as it is 

approximately 200 feet wide at the roadway frontage and opens to approximately 

 

(continued...)

the applicant. . . . The Board may grant a variance, provided that 

the following findings are made where relevant in a given case:

(1) That there are unique physical circumstances or conditions, 

including irregularity . . . of lot size or shape . . . peculiar to the 

particular property and that the unnecessary hardship is due to 

such conditions and not the circumstances or conditions generally 

created by the provisions of this chapter in the neighborhood or 

district in which the property is located.

(2) That because of such physical circumstances or conditions, 

there is no possibility that the property can be developed in strict 

conformity with the provisions of this chapter and the 

authorization of a variance is therefore necessary to enable the 

reasonable use of the property.

(3) That such unnecessary hardship had not been created by the 

appellant.

(4) That the variance, if authorized, will not alter the essential 

character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is 

located nor substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use 

or development of adjacent property nor be detrimental to the 

public welfare.

(5) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum 

variance which will afford relief and the least modification 

possible of the regulation in issue.

See also Section 910.2 of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), Act of July 31, 

1968, P.L. 805, added by Act of December 21, 1988, P.L. 1329, 53 P.S. §10910.2.
3

400 feet in the rear, with a length of approximately 600 feet. The property was 

acquired by the Township and housed the Satterthwaite Farmstead which consisted 

of 6 structures including a 2-1/2 story single family house, several barns, and other 

accessory buildings. The Township subdivided the farm into its present 

configuration. The property is adjacent to the Patterson Farm from which it was 

subdivided, with primarily single-family homes in the surrounding properties. 

In 2003, the Township retained an architect who found that the 

residence is in significant disrepair and that the Township would need to spend 

$400,000.00 for exterior repairs with up to an additional $500,000.00 for structural 

repairs to the house and other accessory structures. Based on the report, the 

Township subdivided the property and listed it for sale in 2011, but no bids were 

submitted. In 2012, the Township again listed the property for sale and Applicant 

was the only bidder. Applicant entered into an agreement of sale with the 

Township to purchase the property on the condition that it restores the existing 

residential structure and restores the other structures subject to a façade easement 

approved by the Township.

Applicant seeks to acquire the property to construct an equine 

specialty care and hospital facility and submitted the application for use and 

dimensional variances. Applicant proposes to convert the existing residence into 

administrative and office space with a possible 550-foot addition and keep the 

existing “bank” barn, but remove the other structures and replace them with four 

barns and a new house at the rear of the property for Bentz and her family. The 

bank barn will be used for storage. Bentz testified that the configuration of the 

existing house is not conducive to current living standards because the rooms are 

small and that its conversion to professional offices will be significantly less 
4

expensive than renovation for the residential use. Fifteen off-street parking spaces 

will be in the rear of the building with an additional eight if necessary. The 

Ordinance requires 123 off-street spaces for the proposed equine hospital, 

professional offices, and house and Applicant needs a variance from this

requirement.3

To the left of the existing driveway, Applicant will construct a 

“mascot” barn of 900 square feet with 3 stalls that will house horses for 

educational purposes and will be used to provide blood transfusions to critical care 

horses. Applicant will construct a “colic” or “critical care” barn of approximately 

4,320 square feet with 7 stalls, which will be used to treat severely ill horses 

requiring constant care and supervision, and an “elective care” barn of 2,600 

square feet and 18 stalls for the treatment of minor ailments and diagnostic 

services. Applicant anticipates no more than 5 to 8 horses will be on the property 

at any time, which requires a variance from the limit of 2 per five acres.4 As 

proposed, the colic barn will have a side yard setback of 35 feet and the elective 

barn will have a side yard of 25 feet. As a result, Applicant needs a dimensional 

variance from the 50-foot setback requirement.5

 

3

Section 200-79.A.(16) states that minimum parking for a general business use is “one 

off-street parking space for every 250 square feet of gross floor area,” and 200-79.A.(42) states 

that minimum parking for a veterinary hospital use is “one off-street parking space for every 150 

square feet of gross floor area.”

4

Section 200-69.A.(11)(b) states that “[n]o more than two livestock units shall be 

permitted for every five acres of lot area.”

5

Section 200-69.A.(11)(c) states that “[a]ccessory structures for livestock housing or use 

shall be located only in the side or rear yards and no closer than 50 feet to any property line.”
5

The new residence will be 1,800 square feet with an adjacent drive 

through garage. The existing driveway will be expanded for access to the elective 

care barn, the colic barn, and the residential garage. The existing and expanded 

driveway will be constructed of traditional asphalt while the proposed parking lot 

and residential driveway will consist of pervious materials. Due to the new 

buildings and driveway, Applicant will increase the impervious surface coverage 

of 28.74% which requires a variance from the Ordinance’s limit.6

Applicant’s plans include the construction of 3 underground storm 

water management facilities to address the retention of storm water on the property 

due to the proposed structure and impervious coverage. The plans propose 

discharge of any storm water into existing inlets along Mirror Lake Road.

A landscape buffer of fencing and vegetation will be concentrated 

along the southwest portion of the property to buffer vehicular lights to the 

residences adjacent to the property. However a variance is required as it is less 

than the buffer required by the Ordinance.7

The facility will provide 24/7 care with 2 sets of staff working 12-

hour shifts, from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The staff 

will consist of Bentz, a veterinarian technician, 2 to 3 administrative staff and 8 to 

14 barn staff. The horses would be “hand walked,” based on their medical 

condition and would remain in their stalls other than during the daily walks.

 

6

Section 200-19.A. limits impervious coverage on lots of more than 5 acres to 17%.

7

Section 200-73.C.(1) states that “[b]uffer shall be provided wherever a nonresidential 

use abuts a residential use;” [t]he buffer shall be located on the nonresidential property and shall 

be located along the side and/or rear property lines which abuts the residential use;” and shall 

have a minimum width of 25 feet and the screened planted area shall be a minimum of 25 feet.
6

The use of the property as a specialty equine medical facility is not a 

permitted use in the R-1 zoning district.8 Applicant’s expert in land use planning, 

Kenneth Amey, testified before the Board and confirmed that the proposed use 

does not meet the specific definitions in the Ordinance. He testified that a general 

veterinary hospital which focuses on small animals is permitted in commercial 

zoning districts, but the equine medical care center use is not the same use and is 

 

8

Section 200-15.A. states that the following uses are permitted in the Township’s R-1 

zoning district: (1) agriculture; (2) single-family detached dwelling; (3) 

nursery/horticulture/greenhouse; (4) public recreational facility; and (5) uses and structures 

accessory to permitted uses including livestock in residential areas and residential accessory 

buildings and structures. Section 200-15.B. provides the following uses by special exception: 

(1) cemetery; (2) golf course; (3) library or museum; (4) nursing home; (5) place of worship; (6) 

public or private school; (7) utility; (8) riding stable; (9) bed-and-breakfast; (10) boarding; (11) 

family day care home occupation; and (12) accessory office home occupation. Section 200-

15.C. provides the following conditional uses: (1) accessory farm business; (2) emergency 

services; and (3) farmland preservation development.

In turn, Section 200-68.A.(1) defines “agriculture” use as “[f]arming activities, 

including tilling of the soil, raising of vegetable or food crops and raising of livestock, horses, or 

poultry” and requires a minimum lot area of 5 acres; prohibits the storage of manure or other 

dust-producing substances within 150 feet of any property line; requires that any building in 

which farm animals are kept to be at least 150 feet from any adjoining lot line; and permits a 

single-family detached dwelling provided that it meets the lot area and dimension requirements.

Additionally, Section 200-68.A.(44) states:

Veterinary hospital. A place where animals are given medical or 

surgical treatment. Boarding shall be prohibited except that 

animals or pets undergoing medical or surgical treatment if kept 

must be housed inside. Use of the facility for boarding is 

prohibited unless the use regulations for kennel are also met.

The veterinary hospital use is a permitted use in the C-1 Commercial-Neighborhood, C-2 

Commercial-Highway Services, and C-3 General Business/Industrial zoning districts. The 

veterinary hospital use is permitted by special exception in the O-R Office/Research zoning 

district.
7

less intensive in noise and traffic and more outdoor-oriented. He stated that the 

proposed use is more conducive to the property because of the prior general 

agricultural and farming use. Applicant’s proposed use will focus more on the 

surgical treatment and care of critically ill horses rather than a general veterinary 

practice.

Thomas Conoscenti and his wife Ellen, neighboring landowners 

(Objectors), intervened before the Board. Mr. Conoscenti testified that the 

property does not have unique physical characteristics warranting the proposed use 

variance and that there is no proof that it could not be financially rehabilitated for 

residential use. He described the general residential nature of the surrounding area

and noted the possible environmental, noise, and traffic impact on the property and 

surrounding area if the proposed use is approved. He stated that the proposed use 

is akin to a commercial business, which is not permitted in the R-1 district, and 

presented evidence that all other large animal care facilities in Pennsylvania and 

New Jersey are in isolated areas and not in close proximity to general residential 

neighborhoods.9

In disposing of the application, the Board noted that while Applicant 

sought approval of several dimensional variances, the most significant request was 

the use variance under Section 200-15 to use the property as an equine medical 

 

9

The Board also noted that a number of other residents testified in opposition to the 

application citing: (1) concerns of the adverse impact of the commercial use on the residential 

character of the property and the surrounding properties; (2) concerns of increased impervious 

surface coverage and any adverse impact on storm water drainage onto neighboring properties; 

(3) concerns of vehicular traffic along existing streets and roads and vehicular access to and from 

the property based on the location of the driveway; (4) lack of significant research into the 

viability of rehabilitating the existing residential building and other structures for residential use; 

and (5), in general, lack of evidence to support the grant of the variances. The Board also noted 

that several residents testified in support of the application, but that they were in the minority.
8

care facility in a residential zoning district. Applicant relied on the irregular “T” 

shape to establish the required unnecessary hardship. However, the Board 

explained that this shape was created by the Township by subdividing the parcel 

from the surrounding farm property, which is all owned by the Township. As a 

result, the purported hardship was self-inflicted by the current owner.

The Board explained that “while the Applicant intends to use the 

property in a manner that would be less intrusive and more comparable to the 

current agricultural use, the proposed use of an equine medical center is 

substantially similar to a general veterinary practice that is permitted in other 

zoning districts.” Board 10/24/12 Decision at 18. The Board found that “[t]he 

only distinction between a general veterinary practice and the Applicant’s 

proposed equine medical center is the treatment of horses by the Applicant versus 

the general medical care of small animals.” Id.

The Board also explained that “[w]hile the costs to renovate and 

repair the existing residential building may be high, the evidence presented by 

Applicant . . . does not substantiate the granting of the requested variance.” Board 

10/24/12 Decision at 18. The Board concluded that “[t]he property can be used in 

accordance with the current zoning regulations,” and it “was not persuaded that the 

property could not be renovated and subsequently used again as a residential 

home.” Id.

The Board expressed its “concerns that the proposed use with the 

various medical barn structures was being ‘squeezed’ into a small parcel, 

consisting of five acres.” Board 10/24/12 Decision at 19. The Board was also “not 

persuaded that the proposed use is more akin to agricultural use than a general 

business enterprise.” Id. As a result, the Board denied Applicant’s use variance 
9

request and denied the various dimensional variance requests as moot. Objectors 

intervened in Landowner’s appeal in which the trial court affirmed the Board’s 

decision.

In the instant appeal of the trial court’s order,

10 Landowner claims that 

the Board erred in denying a use variance under Section 200-15 of the Township’s 

Zoning Ordinance, and in denying an interpretation of or variances from the 

additional relevant requirements of Sections 200-19, 200-69, 200-73, and 200-79 

of the Zoning Ordinance. We disagree.

Our review of the record and the relevant law leads us to conclude 

that the Board did not err in determining that the proposed use is more like the 

veterinary hospital use than the agriculture use provided in the Zoning Ordinance. 

We defer to the Board’s interpretation of the Ordinance. 

[A] zoning hearing board is the entity charged with the 

interpretation and application of the zoning ordinance. It 

is well settled that a zoning hearing board’s interpretation 

of its own zoning ordinance is entitled to great weight 

and deference from a reviewing court. This principle is 

also codified in Section 1921(c)(8) of the Statutory 

Construction Act of 1972, 1 Pa. C.S. §1921(c)(8). The 

 

10 In a land use appeal where the trial court does not take additional evidence, our review 

is limited to determining whether the Board abused its discretion or committed an error of law. 

Tidd v. Lower Saucon Township Zoning Hearing Board, 118 A.3d 1, 7 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015). 

Our review of the Board’s factual determinations is limited to determining whether the Board’s 

findings are supported by substantial, record evidence. Nettleton v. Zoning Hearing Board of 

Pittsburgh, 828 A.2d 1033, 1041 n.10 (Pa. 2003); Haas v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of 

Philadelphia, 169 A.2d 287, 288 (Pa. 1961). The Board as factfinder is the sole judge of 

credibility and evidentiary weight and has the power to reject even uncontradicted testimony. 

Valley View Civic Association v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 462 A.2d 637, 642 (Pa. 1983); 

Taliaferro v. Darby Township Zoning Hearing Board, 873 A.2d 807, 808-09 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2005). It is the function of the Board to weigh the evidence before it, and a reviewing court may 

not substitute its interpretation of the evidence for that of a zoning hearing board. Id. Appellate 

review of the Board’s findings of fact is limited to a substantial evidence analysis. Haas.
10

basis for the judicial deference is the knowledge and 

expertise that a zoning hearing board possesses to 

interpret the ordinance that it is charged with 

administering.

Tri-County Landfill v. Pine Township Zoning Hearing Board, 83 A.3d 488, 510 

(Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (citations omitted). As a result, we concur with the Board’s 

determination that the proposed equine hospital use is not a permitted 

“agricultural” use in the R-1 district but, rather, a veterinary hospital use, so a use 

variance was necessary.11

Additionally, Applicant did not persuade the Board that the residential 

use of the property is so prohibitively expensive as to warrant the grant of a use 

variance. As this Court has explained:

To demonstrate the requisite unnecessary hardship, 

an applicant must prove either: (1) the physical 

characteristics of the property are such that it could not in 

any case be used for any permitted purpose, or that it 

could only be used for such purpose at prohibitive 

expense; or (2) the characteristics of the property are 

such that the lot has either no value or only distress value 

for any purpose permitted by the ordinance. Thus, the 

hardship exception justifying the grant of a variance is 

only triggered when it is shown that compliance with the 

 

11 We disagree with Applicant’s assertion that the Board acted arbitrarily or capriciously 

in this regard. As noted above, the Board had the power to reject even uncontradicted testimony. 

Valley View Civic Association, 462 A.2d at 642; Taliaferro, 873 A.2d at 808-09. Moreover, “[a]

capricious disregard occurs only when the fact-finder deliberately ignores relevant, competent 

evidence. Capricious disregard of evidence is a deliberate and baseless disregard of apparently 

reliable evidence. Taliaferro, 873 A.2d at 814 (citations omitted). See also Wintermyer Inc. v. 

Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Marlowe), 812 A.2d 478, 487-88 (Pa. 2002) (“Even in 

such context, however, this limited aspect of the review serves only as one particular check to 

assure that the agency adjudication has been conducted within lawful boundaries--it is not to be 

applied in such a manner as would intrude upon the agency's fact-finding role and discretionary 

decision-making authority.”). We discern no error in the Board’s credibility determinations in 

this matter.
11

zoning ordinance could render the property practically 

useless.

In addition, the reasons for granting a variance 

must be substantial, serious, and compelling. The burden 

of an applicant seeking a zoning variance is heavy, and 

variances should be granted sparingly and only under 

exceptional circumstances. A variance will not be 

granted simply because a zoning ordinance deprives the 

owner of the most lucrative or profitable uses of the 

property. Economic hardship short of rendering the 

property valueless does not justify the grant of a 

variance.

Oxford Corporation v. Zoning Hearing Board of the Borough of Oxford, 34 A.3d 

286, 295-96 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (citations and footnote omitted). The Board chose 

not to accept Applicant’s assertion that the renovation of the farmhouse was cost 

prohibitive and that it could only be rehabilitated for an office use, and this 

determination will not be disturbed by this Court in this appeal.

Moreover, even under the more relaxed standard for establishing 

unnecessary hardship for the requested dimensional variances, some unnecessary 

hardship must be shown. Hertzberg v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of 

Pittsburgh, 721 A.2d 43, 50 (Pa. 1998); Tidd v. Lower Saucon Township Zoning 

Hearing Board, 118 A.3d 1, 8 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015). However, because the Board 

did not grant the use variance, it did not need to address Applicant’s request for 

variances from the other Zoning Ordinance requirements and we need not address 

Applicant’s claims in this regard in this appeal. See, e.g., In re Avanzato, 403 

A.2d 198, 200 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979) (“[S]ince the owners are not entitled to a 

use variance, we need not consider the application for dimensional variances 

regarding which the owners introduced no evidence.”).
12

Accordingly, the trial court’s order is affirmed.

MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In Re: Application of Sunflower : 

Farm, LLC : No. 815 C.D. 2016

: 

Appeal of: Sunflower Farm, LLC :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 28th day of March, 2017, the order of the Bucks 

County Court of Common Pleas, dated April 19, 2016, at No. 2013-09041, is 

AFFIRMED.

__________________________________

MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge