Giger v. City of Omaha
442 N.W.2d 182, 1989 Neb. LEXIS 297, 232 Neb. 676 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipality may validly rezone property conditioned upon the landowner's agreement to abide by specific development plans and conditions, provided these conditions are reasonably related to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare and are not an illegal bargaining away of the city's police power.
Facts:
- Midlands Development Company (Midlands) entered into a purchase agreement for an 84-acre tract of land in Omaha known as the Renstrom property.
- Midlands applied to the City of Omaha to rezone the property for a mixed-use development, submitting plans that included retail space, office buildings, residential units, and a private lake.
- The final plan also called for Midlands to deed 36 acres of the property to the city for the construction of a public park.
- Midlands and the City of Omaha entered into four agreements, collectively known as the development agreement, which incorporated the final development plan.
- In February 1985, the Omaha City Council passed an ordinance approving the development agreement and five separate ordinances to rezone the Renstrom property accordingly.
- The city then issued building permits to Midlands, including a permit allowing the filling of a floodplain and modification of the Big Papillion Creek channel on the property.
- Construction on the development, known as One Pacific Place, began in approximately September 1985.
Procedural Posture:
- Neighboring property owners (Giger et al.) and downstream riparian property owners (Witherspoon et al.) filed two separate lawsuits against the City of Omaha and Midlands in the district court for Douglas County.
- The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment to void the rezoning ordinance and an injunction to halt development.
- The two lawsuits were consolidated for trial by the district court.
- After a lengthy trial, the trial court denied the plaintiffs' requested relief and entered judgment in favor of the City of Omaha and Midlands.
- The plaintiffs (now the appellants) appealed the trial court's decision to the Supreme Court of Nebraska.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a city's ordinance rezoning property, which incorporates a private development agreement between the city and a developer, constitute an arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable exercise of the city's police power?
Opinions:
Majority - White, J.
No, a rezoning ordinance incorporating a private development agreement is a valid exercise of a city's police power, so long as the conditions imposed are reasonably related to the public welfare. This practice, termed 'conditional rezoning,' is a valid planning tool that allows a municipality greater flexibility and control in balancing development with community interests. The court found that illegal 'contract zoning' occurs when a city bargains away its police power, but that did not happen here. The development agreement with Midlands did not curtail the city's power; in fact, it enhanced it by imposing more restrictive regulations than the underlying zoning classification would have required. The agreement expressly stated that Midlands must still comply with all provisions of the Omaha Municipal Code. The court held that the power to engage in conditional rezoning is implicitly granted to the city by state statutes that provide broad authority to enact zoning regulations. The rezoning was also upheld against challenges that it violated uniformity requirements, was not in accordance with a comprehensive plan, constituted illegal spot zoning, and failed to adequately consider flood risks, as the city's actions were not proven to be arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
Analysis:
This decision formally validates the practice of 'conditional rezoning' in Nebraska, distinguishing it from the prohibited practice of 'contract zoning.' It empowers municipalities to negotiate specific public benefits and impose detailed restrictions as part of a rezoning process, providing them with a more flexible and potent tool for land-use management. The ruling establishes that as long as a city does not bargain away its fundamental police powers and the conditions are rationally related to the public welfare, such agreements are a permissible enhancement of a city's regulatory authority. This precedent gives developers and cities a clearer framework for public-private partnerships in development, likely leading to more negotiated zoning actions that include community amenities like parks, buffers, and infrastructure improvements.
