Sharon Bruning and Robert Bruning, wife and husband, appellants,
City of Omaha Zoning Board of Appeals, appellee.
Zoning: Appeal and Error. On appeal, a
district court may disturb the decision of a zoning appeals
board only when the decision was illegal or is not supported
by the evidence and is thus arbitrary, unreasonable, or
___. In reviewing a decision of the district court regarding
a zoning appeal, the standard of review is whether the
district court abused its discretion or made an error of law.
___. Where competent evidence supports the district
court's factual findings regarding a zoning appeal, an
appellate court will not substitute its factual findings for
those of the district court.
Zoning: Ordinances. Certain factual
circumstances are by themselves insufficient to justify a
finding of hardship, including the desire to build a larger
building, the desire to generate increased profits, and where
the applicant for a variance from a zoning regulation created
his or her own hardships.
___ . The general rule respecting the right of a zoning board
of appeals to grant a variance from zoning regulations on the
ground of unnecessary hardship is that it may not be granted
unless the denial would constitute an unnecessary and unjust
invasion of the right of property.
from the District Court for Douglas County: W. Russell Bowie
J. Vogt, Jason M. Bruno, and James L. Schneider, of Sherrets,
Bruno & Vogt, L.L.C., for appellants.
Neb. 147] Jennifer J. Taylor, Senior Omaha City Attorney, for
Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, Papik,
and Freudenberg, JJ.
leasing their agricultural-zoned land near 163d and Fort
Streets in Omaha, Nebraska (Property), to several commercial
entities and others, Sharon Bruning and Robert Bruning
unsuccessfully sought a variance from the requirements of
Omaha's zoning code based on a claim of unnecessary
hardship. The request for a variance was denied by the City
of Omaha Zoning Board of Appeals (Board). The district court
for Douglas County affirmed the decision of the Board. The
Brunings appeal. 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 Board's decision. We affirm.
following facts are taken from the record in this appeal. The
Brunings own a 4.66-acre parcel of land located near 163d and
Fort Streets in Omaha. The land is and has been zoned for