In State v. Kenosha County Bd. of Adjust., 218 Wis. 2d 396, 410, 577 N.W.2d 813 (1998), the court overturned a variance granted to a resident who desired a variance of the shoreland setback requirement to build a deck on her home. See 218 Wis. 2d at 401. Due to the dangerous and "steep incline from the waters edge to the subject residence," the Board found an "unnecessary hardship" on the landowner and approved the variance request. 218 Wis. 2d at 402, 404. Finding that the Board applied an improper legal standard, the court stressed that the Board's proper focus when considering a variance request should be on the purpose of the zoning regulation. See 218 Wis. 2d at 413. "When the record before the Board demonstrates that the property owner would have a reasonable use of his or her property without the variance, the purpose of the statute takes precedence and the variance request should be denied." 218 Wis. 2d at 414. Accordingly, the court concluded that "only when the applicant has demonstrated that he or she will have no reasonable use of the property, in the absence of a variance, is an unnecessary hardship present." 218 Wis. 2d at 421. The Court clarified the "unnecessary hardship" standard, holding that "only when the applicant has demonstrated that he or she will have no reasonable use of the property, in the absence of a variance, is an unnecessary hardship present." 218 Wis. 2d at 421. There, the court overturned a variance granted to a resident who, desiring to build a deck on her home, sought a variance from that ordinance's shoreland setback requirement.