Dirt Road Development v. Hirschman, 7 N.W.3d 438

Dirt Road Development LLC (DRD) sought an injunction against Robert and Kathryn Hirschman to stop them from constructing and operating a new feedlot on property in Howard County, Nebraska.
The Hirschmans own multiple feedlots in close proximity (northeast, northwest, and southeast corners of a quarter section), and the new feedlot is on a different, but nearby, parcel they also own.
Howard County zoning regulations require a conditional use permit for new or expanding commercial feedlots that are "adjacent" to existing ones under common ownership, defining “adjacent” as “near to or in the vicinity without touching or bordering upon.”
The Hirschmans' new feedlot would have fewer than 500 animal units, typically qualifying as a farm feedlot that does not require a permit, unless deemed "adjacent" to an existing commercial feedlot.
The district court held that the new feedlot was “adjacent,” thus requiring a conditional use permit, and enjoined operation/construction until such a permit was obtained. The Hirschmans appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (DRD)	Defendant's Argument (Hirschman)	Held
Does "adjacent" under zoning regs require a conditional use permit?	“Adjacent” means “near to or in the vicinity”; the feedlots are close enough by regulation’s plain language.	“Adjacent” is ambiguous; only proximity less than minimum set-back creates adjacency, not just vicinity.	"Adjacent" is not ambiguous; means “near to or in the vicinity” per reg definition.
Should regulations be interpreted in favor of property owner?	Regulations’ purpose is to control expansion/impacts; plain language governs.	Ambiguity is to be resolved in property owner’s favor; restrictions not to be implied.	No ambiguity; plain meaning applies, not required to favor owner.
Does combining feedlots yield absurd or unworkable results?	Rules aim to avoid circumvention via clustering; clusters implicate regulatory concerns.	Calculating odor/setback on irregular, noncontiguous land is absurd/impractical.	No absurdity; rules focus on facilities, not just operation center.
Are conditional use permit requirements a clear restriction here?	Purpose expressly includes such restrictions for adjacent expansion under shared ownership.	Permit requirement an undue restriction, beyond clear intent without clear adjacency.	Permit is an explicit restriction within the zoning regulation’s scope.

Hochstein v. Cedar Cty. Bd. of Adjustment, 305 Neb. 321 (Neb. 2020) (appellate review of zoning question is de novo)
State v. Champoux, 252 Neb. 769 (Neb. 1997) (property use subject to reasonable zoning restrictions)
Pickens v. Maryland Cas. Co., 141 Neb. 105 (Neb. 1942) ("adjacent" means near, not necessarily touching)
Mader v. Mettenbrink, 159 Neb. 118 (Neb. 1954) (adjacency determined by factual context in rural land law)