with the paramount right of government to protect by zoning the public health, safety, morals and welfare." McQuillin, supra § 25.166. Variances "are designed to afford a protective device against individual hardships, to provide relief against unnecessary and unjust invasions of the right of private property, and to provide a flexibility of procedure necessary to the protection of constitutional rights." Id. at §25.160. ¶ 45. The unnecessary hardship standard "is neither the same nor as demanding as a takings analysis." 3 Yokley, supra § 21-5 at 86 (Supp. 2000) (emphasis in original). However, the "no reasonable use" test for unnecessary hardship in a use variance case has something of a constitutional ring to it. See Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992)(<HOLDING>). This is generally not true of the test for
holding that the state is obligated to pay property owners when it regulates private property under its police power in such a manner that the regulation effectively deprives the owner of the economically viable use of that property holding that zoning ordinance can effect a regulatory taking if the ordinance does not substantially advance legitimate state interests or denies an owner all economically viable use of his land recognizing categorical taking when regulation denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land holding that a zoning regulation which deprives property of all economically beneficial or productive use is a categorical regulatory taking holding that a regulation prohibiting a landowner from building houses on his beachfront property denied him all economically viable use of his land and therefore was a taking requiring compensation