J. Randazzo v. The Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment, 490 C.D. 2016

Randazzo sought a zoning/use registration to demolish an existing structure and build a multi‑unit residential building at 746–48 S. 16th St., Philadelphia, in an RM‑1 district where maximum height is 38 feet.
Original proposal: six stories, 67 ft. 8 in.; L&I refused the permit as exceeding the 38‑foot height limit. Applicant modified the proposal to five stories, 56 ft., seven units and a reduced 16th Street façade height of 35 ft.
ZBA hearing: neighbors largely opposed based on height and neighborhood character; City Planning Commission and Councilmember’s office expressed no objection; community organizations were split.
ZBA concluded Applicant failed to prove unnecessary hardship or that the variance sought was the minimum relief; it also found no unique physical condition preventing compliance and noted the lot’s size partly resulted from Applicant’s proposed consolidation.
Trial court affirmed the ZBA without taking additional evidence; this appeal followed. The Commonwealth Court affirmed.

Issue	Randazzo's Argument	ZBA/City's Argument	Held
Whether the ZBA applied the wrong legal standard (use v. dimensional variance) and failed to apply the Hertzberg dimensional‑variance factors to the modified 56‑ft proposal	Z. argued the ZBA treated the case like a use variance and ignored the relaxed Hertzberg dimensional standard and evidence of surrounding tall buildings and contextual fit	ZBA maintained it applied the proper standards for a dimensional variance and required proof of unnecessary hardship and minimal relief	Court: No reversible error. ZBA acknowledged a dimensional variance was sought and reasonably found Applicant failed to prove unnecessary hardship or minimal relief under the applicable standards
Whether Applicant proved unnecessary hardship (and minimal variance) to permit the height deviation	Z. claimed surrounding neighborhood context, lot size, and financial infeasibility of a lower building established hardship and that the modified plan was the minimum relief	ZBA argued Applicant presented only speculative/financial want and no evidence of property‑based hardship or specific financial detriment; consolidation contributed to lot size	Court: Applicant failed to prove property‑based unnecessary hardship (even under Hertzberg) or that the variance requested was the least modification necessary; mere desire for profitability is insufficient

Hertzberg v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh, 721 A.2d 43 (Pa. 1998) (adopted relaxed, multi‑factor standard for dimensional‑variance hardship)
Alpine, Inc. v. Abington Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 654 A.2d 186 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (variance entitlement criteria)
Teazers, Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of City of Phila., 682 A.2d 856 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (mere economic benefit insufficient for hardship)
Society Created to Reduce Urban Blight v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 771 A.2d 874 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (Hertzberg does not eliminate hardship requirement)
Singer v. Phila. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 29 A.3d 144 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (financial burden or desire to develop is insufficient to show hardship)
Marshall v. City of Phila., 97 A.3d 323 (Pa. 2014) (applicant need not show property is valueless without variance)
Yeager v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of City of Allentown, 779 A.2d 595 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (variance appropriate only where property, not the person, is subject to hardship)
Szmigiel v. Kranker, 298 A.2d 629 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1972) (hardship must be property‑based)