Opinion ID: 1953729
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Exceptional and Undue Hardship

Text: The variance procedure has many purposes. It is designed to provide relief from the strict letter of the regulations, protect zoning legislation from constitutional attack, alleviate an otherwise unjust invasion of property rights and prevent usable land from remaining idle. [29] These purposes infuse meaning into the phrase exceptional and undue hardship. The authorities widely recognize, as petitioners contend, that the hardship envisioned by the statute must be great. A use variance cannot be granted unless a situation arises where reasonable use cannot be made of the property in a manner consistent with the Zoning Regulations. [30] An inability to put property to a more profitable use or loss of economic advantage is not sufficient to constitute hardship. [31] It must be shown that the regulations preclude the use of the property in question for any purpose for which it is reasonably adapted, i. e., can the premises be put to any conforming use with a fair and reasonable return arising out of the ownership thereof? [32] (Emphasis in original.) In substance Emergency's hardship argument is that 2813 M Street cannot be used as a public hall by the tenant or the owner under the present zoning plan as long as current parking conditions continue in Georgetown. There is no evidence in the record that the owner cannot reasonably adapt the premises or find a tenant to produce a reasonable income for a use in conformance with the off-street parking regulations. Accordingly, the record before us fails to support a finding of hardship upon the owner.