Landrum v. City of Omaha Planning Bd.
297 Neb. 165
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Developers (Leise et al.) sought to develop a convenience storage and limited warehousing project on a 4.75‑acre CC‑zoned lot and requested: (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 recommended approval (subject to conditions); neighbors submitted petitions and opposed based on compatibility, property values, safety, lighting, and notice concerns.
- Planning Board held hearings, approved the conditional use permit and recommended approval of the special use permit and MCC overlay rezoning to City Council; City Council later approved both the special use permit and the rezoning.
- Nearby homeowners (Homeowners) filed a petition in error challenging the Planning Board approval (conditional use permit), and the City Council approvals (special use permit and rezoning), seeking vacation/reversal and injunctive relief.
- District court affirmed the municipal decisions and dismissed the petition in error; on appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court considered timeliness, standing, whether rezoning/special use were reviewable by petition in error, sufficiency of evidence, and due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of petition in error re: conditional use permit | Landrum: appeal timely because Planning Board approval wasn’t final until City Council action on related rezoning | City/Board: petition filed >30 days after Planning Board decision -> untimely | Held: Timely — under municipal code conditional permit effective when rezoning ordinance effective; petition filed within 30 days of that final order |
| Standing to challenge rezoning/overlay | Landrum: adjacent owners within 300 ft have standing; showed special injury (property‑value expert) | City/Board: MCC overlay is more restrictive and benefits neighbors; no special injury alleged | Held: Homeowners showed sufficient evidence of special injury to establish standing |
| Proper remedy for rezoning/special use (legislative vs quasi‑judicial) | Landrum: simultaneous hearings made City Council act quasi‑judicially so petition in error proper | City/Board: rezoning is a legislative act; petition in error improper — remedy is collateral attack/injunction | Held: City Council acted legislatively on rezoning and special use; petition in error was improper — court dismisses those claims for lack of jurisdiction |
| Conditional use permit — sufficiency of evidence and due process | Landrum: Planning Board lacked sufficient competent evidence; process was biased or curtailed opponents’ ability to present evidence | City/Board: planning reports, hearings, and evidence supported approval; process afforded notice and hearing | Held: Planning Board acted within jurisdiction, had sufficient relevant evidence under §55‑885 criteria, and provided 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 (municipal ordinance interpretation is a question of law)
- Crown Products Co. v. City of Ralston, 253 Neb. 1 (review on petition in error: jurisdiction and sufficiency of evidence standards)
- Smith v. City of Papillion, 270 Neb. 607 (adjacent landowners within notice radius may show special injury and standing)
- In re Application of Frank, 183 Neb. 722 (appeal in error does not lie from purely legislative acts; remedy is collateral attack)
- Giger v. City of Omaha, 232 Neb. 676 (zoning ordinance adoption is legislative)
- McNally v. City of Omaha, 273 Neb. 558 (distinguishing quasi‑judicial administrative hearings where evidentiary records and adversarial proceedings occurred)
- In re Application of Olmer, 275 Neb. 852 (quasi‑judicial nature where record included exhibits, testimony, and evidentiary procedure)