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

Background

Developers sought to build a multi-building convenience storage and limited warehousing facility on a 4.75-acre parcel in Omaha; approvals required a Planning Board conditional use permit, a City Council special use permit, and rezoning to add an MCC overlay.
Planning department issued reports recommending approval (subject to conditions); neighbors submitted petitions and opposition citing safety, compatibility, lighting, and property-value concerns.
Planning Board held hearings (May and August 2015) and voted to approve the conditional use permit and to recommend the special use permit and rezoning to City Council.
City Council held hearings (September and October 2015), heard further neighborhood comments and developer revisions, then approved the MCC overlay rezoning and the special use permit (5–2 votes) with conditions.
Homeowners filed a petition in error challenging the Planning Board’s conditional use permit and the City Council’s special use permit and rezoning; district court affirmed and dismissed the petition; parties appealed/cross-appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of petition in error re: conditional use permit	Landrum: petition timely because Planning Board approval wasn’t final when made (conditional use effective on city ordinance implementing rezoning).	City: petition filed >30 days after Planning Board action, so untimely.	Held: Timely — municipal code makes conditional permit effective on City Council rezoning ordinance; petition filed within 30 days of that final order.
Standing to challenge rezoning	Landrum: adjacent homeowners within 300 ft have standing and showed special injury (e.g., expert testimony on property-value harm).	City: Homeowners lack special injury; MCC overlay is more restrictive and benefits neighbors.	Held: Homeowners showed sufficient evidence of special injury and thus standing to challenge rezoning.
Proper remedy to challenge rezoning and special use permit	Landrum: City Council’s simultaneous hearings made the rezoning/permit quasi-judicial and reviewable by petition in error.	City: Rezoning is a legislative act—not reviewable by petition in error; proper remedy is injunctive/collateral attack.	Held: City Council acted legislatively (no adversarial record); petition in error was improper for rezoning and special use permit — district court lacked jurisdiction on those claims; appeal on those issues dismissed and district-court order vacated.
Sufficiency of evidence & due process for Planning Board conditional use permit	Landrum: Planning Board lacked sufficient competent evidence; process was biased and interlocutory procedures prevented meaningful cross-examination.	City: Planning department reports, hearings, and revised plans provided adequate evidence; homeowners had notice and opportunity to be heard.	Held: Planning Board acted within jurisdiction, had sufficient evidence under §55-885, and provided due process; district court’s affirmation of the conditional use permit was 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 on petition in error asks whether tribunal acted within jurisdiction and whether decision is supported by sufficient evidence)
Smith v. City of Papillion, 270 Neb. 607 (adjacent landowners entitled to notice and may show special injury for 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 (rezoning ordinance is a legislative act)
Copple v. City of Lincoln, 210 Neb. 504 (city council rezoning is legislative)
McNally v. City of Omaha, 273 Neb. 558 (distinguishes quasi-judicial hearing where evidence is received and adversarial procedures exist)
In re Application of Olmer, 275 Neb. 852 (county board acted quasi-judicially where record included exhibits and evidentiary submission)
Nebraska State Bar Found. v. Lancaster Cty. Bd. of Equal., 237 Neb. 1 (when trial court lacks jurisdiction, appellate court likewise lacks power to adjudicate merits)
V.C. v. Casady, 262 Neb. 714 (issues not raised in trial court may not be raised on appeal)
Abdullah v. Nebraska Dept. of Corr. Servs., 245 Neb. 545 (procedural rules for petitions in error)
Glup v. City of Omaha, 222 Neb. 355 (petition in error timing and record requirements)
Field Club v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Omaha, 283 Neb. 847 (burden to establish elements of standing)
Geringer v. City of Omaha, 237 Neb. 928 (reviewing court limited to administrative record; does not reweigh evidence)
Ashby v. Civil Serv. Comm., 241 Neb. 988 (due process in administrative proceedings requires notice, hearing, and impartial board)
Johnson v. Nelson, 290 Neb. 703 (appellate court need not decide issues unnecessary to disposition)