(1) The board of adjustment shall, subject to such appropriate conditions and safeguards as may be established by the county board, have only the following powers:
(a) To hear and decide appeals when it is alleged by the appellant that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision, or refusal made by an administrative official or agency based on or made in the enforcement of any zoning regulation or any regulation relating to the location or soundness of structures. The board of adjustment shall have no authority to hear and decide appeals regarding conditional use permits or special exceptions which may be granted pursuant to section 23-114.01;
(b) To hear and decide, in accordance with the provisions of any regulation, requests for interpretation of any map; and
(c) When by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a specific piece of property at the time of the adoption of the zoning regulations, or by reason of exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition of such piece of property, the strict application of any enacted regulation under sections 23-114 to 23-114.05, 23-168.01 to 23-168.04, 23-172 to 23-174, 23-174.02, 23-373, and 23-376 would result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties to, or exceptional and undue hardships upon the owner of such property, to authorize, upon an appeal relating to the property, a variance from such strict application so as to relieve such difficulties or hardship, if such relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of any zoning regulations, but no such variance shall be authorized unless the board of adjustment finds that: (i) The strict application of the resolution would produce undue hardship; (ii) such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity; (iii) the authorization of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and the character of the district will not be changed by the granting of the variance; and (iv) the granting of such variance is based upon reasons of demonstrable and exceptional hardship as distinguished from variations for purposes of convenience, profit or caprice.
(2) No variance shall be authorized unless the board finds that the condition or situation of the property concerned or the intended use of the property 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 the zoning regulations.
(3) In exercising the powers granted in this section, the board may, in conformity with the provisions of sections 23-114 to 23-114.05, 23-168.01 to 23-168.04, 23-172 to 23-174, 23-174.02, 23-373, and 23-376, reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the order, requirement, decision, or determination appealed from and may make such order, requirement, decision, or determination as shall be proper, and to that end shall have the power of the officer or agency from whom the appeal is taken. The concurring vote of four members of the board shall be necessary to reverse any order, requirement, decision, or determination of any such administrative official, or to decide in favor of the applicant on any matter upon which it is required to pass under any such regulation or to effect any variation in such regulation.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases, 1976–2020 · leading case:
In re Olmer, 752 N.W.2d 124 (Neb. 2008).
In re Olmer, 752 N.W.2d 124 (Neb. 2008).
· cites it 2× “of Adjustment, [2] had addressed a similar issue and had concluded that under Neb.Rev.Stat. § 23-168.03 (Reissue 1997), an appeal of a denial of a conditional use permit by the county board of supervisors must be made to the board of adjustment.”
Adler v. Lynch, 415 F. Supp. 705 (D. Neb. 1976).
· cites it 5× “§ 23-168.03 (Reissue 1974); 101 C.J.S. Zoning § 273, p.”
Bonge v. Cnty. of Madison, 573 N.W.2d 448 (Neb. 1998).
· cites it 2× “The granting of a variance clearly falls within the board of adjustment’s powers, as defined by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 23-168.03 (Reissue 1991).”
Mogensen v. Bd. of Supervisors, 679 N.W.2d 413 (Neb. 2004).
· cites it 4× “In addition, § 23-168.03 provides: The board of adjustment shall, subject to such appropriate conditions and safeguards as may be established by the county board, have only the following powers: (1) To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged by the appellant that there is an…”
Niewohner v. Antelope Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment, 668 N.W.2d 258 (Neb. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 8× “*136 The Niewohners argue that the Board of Supervisors is an administrative agency and that therefore, an appeal to the Board of Adjustment was proper under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 23-168.03 (Reissue 1997).”
Dolezal-Soukup v. Dodge Cty. Bd. of Adjustment, 952 N.W.2d 674 (Neb. 2020).
· cites it 17× “03 (Reissue 2012), the board erred in finding that strict application of the setback requirements would result in “peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties” “or exceptional and undue hardships” for the Kreifels.”
Niewohner v. Antelope Cnty. Bd. of Adjust., 668 N.W.2d 258 (Neb. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 8× “The Niewohners argue that the Board of Supervisors is an administrative agency and that therefore, an appeal to the Board of Adjustment was proper under Neb.Rev. Stat. § 23-168.03 (Reissue 1997).”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 23-168.03(1): 3 cases
Mogensen v. Bd. of Supervisors, 679 N.W.2d 413 (Neb. 2004).
“In addition, § 23-168.03 provides: The board of adjustment shall, subject to such appropriate conditions and safeguards as may be established by the county board, have only the following powers: (1) To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged by the appellant that there is an…”
Niewohner v. Antelope Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment, 668 N.W.2d 258 (Neb. Ct. App. 2003).
“*136 The Niewohners argue that the Board of Supervisors is an administrative agency and that therefore, an appeal to the Board of Adjustment was proper under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 23-168.03 (Reissue 1997).”
Niewohner v. Antelope Cnty. Bd. of Adjust., 668 N.W.2d 258 (Neb. Ct. App. 2003).
“The Niewohners argue that the Board of Supervisors is an administrative agency and that therefore, an appeal to the Board of Adjustment was proper under Neb.Rev. Stat. § 23-168.03 (Reissue 1997).”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 23-168.03(1)(c): 1 case
Dolezal-Soukup v. Dodge Cty. Bd. of Adjustment, 952 N.W.2d 674 (Neb. 2020).
“03 (Reissue 2012), the board erred in finding that strict application of the setback requirements would result in “peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties” “or exceptional and undue hardships” for the Kreifels.”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 23-168.03(1)(c)(ii): 1 case
Dolezal-Soukup v. Dodge Cty. Bd. of Adjustment, 952 N.W.2d 674 (Neb. 2020).
“03 (Reissue 2012), the board erred in finding that strict application of the setback requirements would result in “peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties” “or exceptional and undue hardships” for the Kreifels.”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 23-168.03(1)(c)(iv): 1 case
Dolezal-Soukup v. Dodge Cty. Bd. of Adjustment, 952 N.W.2d 674 (Neb. 2020).
“03 (Reissue 2012), the board erred in finding that strict application of the setback requirements would result in “peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties” “or exceptional and undue hardships” for the Kreifels.”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 23-168.03(2): 1 case
Dolezal-Soukup v. Dodge Cty. Bd. of Adjustment, 952 N.W.2d 674 (Neb. 2020).
“03 (Reissue 2012), the board erred in finding that strict application of the setback requirements would result in “peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties” “or exceptional and undue hardships” for the Kreifels.”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 23-168.03(3): 1 case
Adler v. Lynch, 415 F. Supp. 705 (D. Neb. 1976).
“§ 23-168.03 (Reissue 1974); 101 C.J.S. Zoning § 273, p.”
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.