Hochstein v. Cedar Cty. Bd. of Adjustment, 940 N.W.2d 251

Hochstein operated a 4,500-animal-unit livestock feeding operation (LFO) in Cedar County’s A‑1 Agricultural‑Intensive District; the regulations require a 1‑mile setback for residences from an LFO of that size.
Mark and Carla Goeden owned a 240‑acre portion of a larger farm and applied for a permit to build a residence on an 80‑acre tract; the county zoning administrator approved the permit.
Hochstein appealed to the Cedar County Board of Adjustment, arguing the proposed house was a “non‑Farm residence” and therefore had to satisfy the LFO 1‑mile setback; the board affirmed the permit by a 4–1 vote.
Hochstein sued in district court, which received the board record and the county zoning regulations and affirmed the board’s decision.
The zoning regulations did not define “non‑farm residence”; they defined “farm” (≥40 acres), “agricultural operations,” and included owner/operator residences among “agricultural and farm buildings and structures,” and separately permitted new single‑family dwellings on lots of 80 acres or more in A‑1.
The Supreme Court concluded the Goeden house is located on a defined farm and its construction is at least “incidental to” farm operations (and falls within permitted uses), so it is not a “non‑Farm residence”; it affirmed the lower courts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the proposed house is a “non‑Farm residence” under the A‑1 regulations	Hochstein: house is non‑farm because Goeden leased out the tract, does not personally farm it, and maintains other livestock elsewhere	Goeden/Board: house is on a defined farm (≥40 acres), owners’ residence is an agricultural/farm building and is at least incidental to farm operations	Court: not a non‑Farm residence; falls within definitions/permitted uses; regulations construed together favoring owner use
Whether the A‑1 intent language precludes the residence despite other provisions	Hochstein: A‑1 intent aims to restrict residential encroachment; snippets require protection of LFOs	Goeden/Board: provisions must be read together; specific definitions and permitted principal uses (owners’ residence; new dwellings on ≥80 acres) control	Court: read regulations as whole; specific permitted uses prevail over any broad intent snippets
Whether the board’s and district court’s decisions were arbitrary/unreasonable	Hochstein: board failed to apply setback for non‑farm residences and ignored regulatory intent	Goeden/Board: board applied definitions and pertinent permitted uses; no arbitrary action	Court: no abuse of discretion or legal error; affirmed

Rodehorst Bros. v. City of Norfolk Bd. of Adjustment, 287 Neb. 779 (2014) (standards for appellate review of board of adjustment decisions; zoning interpretation principles)
Premium Farms v. County of Holt, 263 Neb. 415 (2002) (zoning regulations construed like statutes and read together)
Mossman v. City of Columbus, 234 Neb. 78 (1989) (give zoning laws fair, reasonable construction in light of legislative intent)
Beckman v. City of Grand Island, 182 Neb. 840 (1968) (zoning restrictions not extended by implication)
Kaiser v. Western R/C Flyers, 239 Neb. 624 (1991) (interpretation of zoning ordinances is a question of law)
Thieman v. Cedar Valley Feeding Co., 18 Neb. App. 302 (2010) (application of zoning principles to livestock feeding operations)