Landrum v. City of Omaha Planning Bd., 297 Neb. 165

Background

Developers sought to build a convenience storage and limited warehousing facility on a 4.75-acre Omaha lot; requests required (1) a Planning Board conditional use permit, (2) a City Council special use permit, and (3) rezoning to add an MCC overlay district.
Planning Department issued reports recommending approval (subject to conditions); Planning Board held hearings on May 6 and Aug 5, 2015, and approved the conditional use permit and recommended the special use permit and rezoning to City Council.
City Council held hearings on Sept 29 and Oct 20, 2015, and approved the MCC rezoning and the special use permit (each 5–2), adopting conditions and design enhancements proposed by the developers.
Nearby residents (including the Homeowners) protested at hearings, submitted petitions and an opposition document alleging impacts on views, safety, property values, buffering, lighting, and procedural notice/authority defects.
Homeowners filed a petition in error (Oct 21, 2015, amended Nov 2) challenging Planning Board’s conditional use permit approval and City Council’s special use permit and rezoning; district court affirmed and dismissed; parties cross‑appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of petition in error re: conditional use permit	Landrum: petition filed >30 days after Planning Board vote, but Planning Board approval was not final because it was tied to rezoning	City: petition untimely because filed more than 30 days after Planning Board action	Held: Conditional use permit became final on Oct 20, 2015 (effective date of rezoning ordinance); petition filed Oct 21 was timely, so district court had jurisdiction
Standing to challenge rezoning/permits	Landrum: adjacent owners within 300 ft; presented expert testimony re: property value impact → special injury	City: MCC overlay is more restrictive than base zoning; homeowners failed to show special injury	Held: Homeowners demonstrated standing (300‑ft notice entitlement plus expert testimony showing probable property value impact)
Reviewability of City Council rezoning and special use permit (legislative v. quasi‑judicial)	Landrum: simultaneous hearings and same evidence made City Council’s action judicial/reviewable by petition in error	City: rezoning is legislative; petition in error is improper — only collateral attack (injunction) available	Held: City Council acted legislatively on rezoning and special use permit; petition in error is not the proper remedy for those actions → appellate court lacks jurisdiction over those claims; those portions dismissed and district court order vacated
Conditional use permit: jurisdiction, evidentiary sufficiency, due process	Landrum: Planning Board lacked jurisdiction (asserting application defects/owner authority) and approval lacked sufficient evidence and procedural fairness	City/Planning Board: application, notices, planning reports, hearings, and conditions provided jurisdiction, evidence, and due process	Held: On issues preserved below, Planning Board acted within its jurisdiction, had sufficient evidence (planning reports, testimony, application revisions) under §55‑885 standards, and afforded procedural due process; district court affirmed as to conditional use permit

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Parks v. Council of City of Omaha, 277 Neb. 919 (interpretation of municipal ordinance is a question of law)
Crown Products Co. v. City of Ralston, 253 Neb. 1 (petition in error review: jurisdiction and sufficiency of evidence standards)
Smith v. City of Papillion, 270 Neb. 607 (adjacent landowner standing; 300‑foot notice supports special injury)
In re Application of Frank, 183 Neb. 722 (appeal in error does not lie from purely legislative acts)
Giger v. City of Omaha, 232 Neb. 676 (zoning ordinance/rezoning is legislative action)
McNally v. City of Omaha, 273 Neb. 558 (distinguishing quasi‑judicial hearings where evidence is received and adjudicative functions are exercised)