Landrum v. City of Omaha Planning Bd.
297 Neb. 165
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Developers sought to build a convenience storage and limited warehousing project on a 4.75-acre lot in Omaha, requiring: (1) a conditional use permit (Planning Board), (2) a special use permit (City Council), and (3) rezoning to add an MCC overlay (City Council).
- Planning Department recommended approval (with conditions); neighborhood residents submitted petitions and spoke in opposition at Planning Board and City Council hearings.
- Planning Board approved the conditional use permit and recommended approval of the special use permit and MCC overlay rezoning; City Council later approved the rezoning and special use permit.
- Homeowners filed a petition in error challenging all three approvals (conditional use, special use, rezoning) and sought temporary injunctions; district court affirmed and dismissed the petition.
- Nebraska Supreme Court: affirmed the district court as to the conditional use permit (Planning Board), but dismissed and vacated the portions challenging the City Council’s rezoning and special use permit for lack of jurisdiction because those were legislative actions not reviewable by petition in error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of petition in error for conditional use permit | Landrum: petition timely because Planning Board approval wasn’t final while tied to rezoning | City: petition untimely (filed >30 days after Planning Board action) | Held: Timely — ordinance implementing rezoning made the conditional permit final Oct 20; petition filed Oct 21 was within 30 days |
| Standing to challenge rezoning/permits | Landrum: adjacent homeowners within 300 feet, and expert testimony showed property-value harm, so special injury exists | City: no special injury because MCC overlay is more restrictive and protects homeowners | Held: Homeowners have standing (300-foot notice entitlement + broker testimony showed special injury) |
| Proper remedy for rezoning and special use permit (legislative vs quasi-judicial) | Landrum: City Council held concurrent hearings and took evidence, so action was quasi-judicial and reviewable by petition in error | City: rezoning is legislative; petition in error is improper — injunction is proper remedy | Held: City Council acted legislatively on rezoning and special use permit; petition in error improper; those claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Sufficiency of evidence and due process for conditional use permit | Landrum: insufficient competent evidence; Board biased; criteria of §55-885 not properly applied; due process violated | City/Planning Board: planning reports and hearings satisfied review criteria, evidence, and procedures; Homeowners had opportunity to be heard | Held: Planning Board acted within jurisdiction, applied relevant criteria, had sufficient evidence, 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 question of law)
- Crown Products Co. v. City of Ralston, 253 Neb. 1 (review on petition in error: jurisdiction and sufficiency of evidence)
- Smith v. City of Papillion, 270 Neb. 607 (adjacent owners/300-foot notice supports standing)
- In re Application of Frank, 183 Neb. 722 (rezoning is legislative; petition in error not available)
- Giger v. City of Omaha, 232 Neb. 676 (zoning ordinance is legislative function)
- McNally v. City of Omaha, 273 Neb. 558 (distinguishes quasi-judicial hearings where evidence was formally received)
- In re Application of Olmer, 275 Neb. 852 (county board acted quasi-judicially when record included exhibits and testimony)
- Nebraska State Bar Found. v. Lancaster Cty. Bd. of Equal., 237 Neb. 1 (appellate court lacks power to adjudicate claims when trial court lacked jurisdiction)