3. Application.

    a. "Respondents' answer [question no. 3 on the zoning variance application] stated only that the facility would meet health and safety standards and that traffic impacts would be mitigated. This answer was non-responsive and failed to provide any evidence that a hardship or difficulty existed which warranted the granting of the variance which would allow manufacturing in a residential district."
Enterprise Citizens v. Clark Co. Comm'rs, 112 Nev. 649, 657, 918 P.2d 305 (1996). No. 48.

    b. "Respondents never explained why the circumstances listed in the answers to questions one and two made the property unsuitable for its zoned residential use and therefore valueless without a variance...." Id. at 657.