The zoning board of appeals shall fix a reasonable time for the hearing of the appeal or other matter referred to it pursuant to section 14-409 and give due notice of such hearing to the parties and decide such appeal or other matter within a reasonable time. Upon the hearing, any party may appear in person or by agent or by attorney. The zoning board of appeals may reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the order, requirement, decision, or determination appealed from and shall make such order, requirement, decision, or determination as in its opinion ought to be made in the premises, and to that end shall have all the powers of the officer from whom the appeal is taken. Where there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of such ordinance, the zoning board of appeals shall have the power in passing upon appeals, to vary or modify the application of any of the regulations or provisions of such ordinance relating to the use, construction, or alteration of buildings or structures or the use of land, so that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed, public safety and welfare secured, and substantial justice done.
Notes of Decisions
Bruning v. City of Omaha Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 303 Neb. 146 (Neb. 2019).
· cites it 9× “Competent evidence supports the findings of the district court and its conclusion that the Brunings' situation did not warrant a variance under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 14-411 (Reissue 2012). The district court did not abuse its discretion or make an error of law when it upheld the…”
Eastroads, L.L.C. v. Omaha Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 628 N.W.2d 677 (Neb. 2001).
· cites it 10× “The board argues that Frank is inapplicable to a variance granted under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 14-411 (Reissue 1997) in that Frank was decided under Neb.”
Lamar Co. of Nebraska, L.L.C. v. Omaha Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 713 N.W.2d 406 (Neb. 2006).
· cites it 4× “Moreover, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 14-411 (Reissue 1997) sets forth a zoning board’s power to grant variances and provides in relevant part: Where there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of such ordinance, the board of…”
Rousseau v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Omaha, 764 N.W.2d 130 (Neb. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 3× “The applicable portion of § 14-411 states as follows: Where there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of such ordinance, the board of appeals shall have the power in passing upon appeals, to vary or modify the…”
Peterson v. Vasak, 76 N.W.2d 420 (Neb. 1956).
· cites it 2× “§ 14-411, R. R. S. 1943. Permission for the proposed *508 use of the land will not be contrary to the public interest or welfare.”
City of Omaha v. Cutchall, 114 N.W.2d 6 (Neb. 1962).
· cites it 2× “The court considered *463 the matter de novo and directed its attention to section 14-411, R. R. S. 1943. With respect to the board’s ruling, this court stated that the board had abused its discretion, that its ruling was arbitrary, and that its action would be set aside on…”
Eastroads, L.L.C. v. Omaha Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 619 N.W.2d 618 (Neb. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 14-411 (Reissue 1997) empowers the Board to grant a variance from a zoning ordinance “[w]here there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter” of the zoning ordinance.”
A. C. Nelsen Enter., Inc. v. Cook, 195 N.W.2d 759 (Neb. 1972).
· cites it 2× “Even if it be assumed that the zoning ordinance did not expressly permit retail sales of mobile homes in a C-l zone, the practical difficulties and hardships to the lessee certificate holder should require relief under section 14-411, R. R. S’. 1943. The City contends that there…”
Roncka v. Fogarty, 41 N.W.2d 745 (Neb. 1950).
· cites it 2× “Section 14-411 provides that upon hearing the board of appeals may reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the order, requirement, decision, or determination as in its opinion ought to be made in the premises, and to that end shall have all the powers of the official…”
Bruning v. City of Omaha Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 303 Neb. 146 (Neb. 2019).
· cites it 9× “Competent evidence supports the find- ings of the district court and its conclusion that the Brunings’ situation did not warrant a variance under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 14-411 (Reissue 2012). The district court did not abuse its discretion or make an error of law when it upheld the…”
Dolezal-Soukup v. Dodge Cty. Bd. of Adjustment, 308 Neb. 63 (Neb. 2020).
· cites it 2× “” We found that because the record showed that the company’s sole justification for the variance was to maximize its profits, the company had failed to establish that strict application of the setback requirement would have produced undue hard- ship.”
French v. City of Omaha Zoning Bd. (Neb. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 3× “French also contends that the Board ignored McNeil’s misleading, inaccurate, and contradictory statements about the exact measurements of the requested variances.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.