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; approvals required a Planning Board conditional use permit, a City Council special use permit, and rezoning to add an MCC overlay district.
Planning Department recommended approval (with conditions); neighbors submitted petitions and testimony opposing the project citing compatibility, safety, lighting, and property-value concerns.
The Planning Board approved the conditional use permit, special use permit, and recommended rezoning on August 5, 2015; the City Council approved the rezoning ordinance and special use permit on October 20, 2015.
Homeowners filed a petition in error (Oct. 21, 2015) challenging the conditional use permit, the special use permit, and the rezoning, and sought injunctive relief; district court affirmed and dismissed the petition with prejudice.
On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court upheld the conditional use permit but held it lacked jurisdiction to review the City Council’s legislative rezoning and special use permit decisions via petition in error, vacating and dismissing that portion of the district court’s order.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of petition in error as to conditional use permit	Landrum: petition timely because Planning Board approval was not final until Council acted on rezoning	City: petition filed >30 days after Planning Board decision so untimely	Held: Conditional use permit became final when Council approved rezoning (Oct. 20); petition filed Oct. 21 was timely.
Standing to challenge rezoning	Landrum: adjacent owners within 300 ft; special injury shown (property-value testimony)	City: no special injury because MCC overlay is more restrictive and protective	Held: Landrum showed standing (notice-right + broker testimony) sufficient to challenge.
Proper remedy to review City Council rezoning and special use permit	Landrum: simultaneous hearings and evidence made Council action quasi-judicial, so petition in error is proper	City: rezoning is legislative; petition in error not proper remedy	Held: City Council acted legislatively on rezoning and special use permit; petition in error is improper — injunctive (collateral) relief is the correct remedy. Court lacked jurisdiction to review those claims.
Sufficiency of evidence & due process for Planning Board conditional use	Landrum: Planning Board ignored incompatibility, safety, economic harm; board biased and limited opposers’ opportunity	City: planning reports, hearings, and conditions addressed criteria; due process satisfied	Held: Planning Board acted within jurisdiction, had sufficient evidence under §55-885, and afforded due process; conditional use permit affirmed.

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 (review of petition in error tests jurisdiction and sufficiency of evidence)
Smith v. City of Papillion, 270 Neb. 607 (adjacent landowners can have standing to challenge rezoning when special injury shown)
In re Application of Frank, 183 Neb. 722 (petition in error does not lie from purely legislative acts)
Giger v. City of Omaha, 232 Neb. 676 (rezoning ordinance is legislative)
Copple v. City of Lincoln, 210 Neb. 504 (city council rezoning is a legislative act)
McNally v. City of Omaha, 273 Neb. 558 (distinction when quasi-judicial body conducts adversarial hearing receiving evidence)
In re Application of Olmer, 275 Neb. 852 (county board acted quasi-judicially in conditional use denial when record included exhibits and testimony)
Nebraska State Bar Foundation v. Lancaster County Board of Equalization, 237 Neb. 1 (appellate court lacks power to adjudicate merits when trial court lacked jurisdiction)
Abdullah v. Nebraska Dept. of Correctional Servs., 245 Neb. 545 (statutory time limits for petition in error)