A.      The strict application of the terms of this Ordinance would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property because of:

• The exceptional narrowness, shallowness, size, or shape of the property at the time of the effective date of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended; or
• The exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary situations or condition of the property; or
• The condition, situation, or development of the property immediately adjacent thereto

B.      The granting of such variance will alleviate a clearly demonstrable hardship approaching confiscation, as distinguished from a special privilege or convenience sought by the applicant.

C.      The property was acquired in good faith.

D.      Satisfactory evidence exists to support all of the following findings from Section 10-55(1)(e)

• The strict application of this Ordinance would produce undue hardship to the property owner;
• Such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity;
• Such variance is not contrary to the public interest nor to the intended spirit and purpose of this Ordinance;
• The granting of such variance will not be a substantial detriment to adjacent properties nor change the character of the zoning district in which the property is located;
  
• Such variance would result in substantial justice being done; and
  
• The condition or situation of the property which gives rise to the need for such variance is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation to be adopted as an amendment to this Ordinance.