Opinion ID: 2066496
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: formal protest

Text: Homeowners' first assignment of error alleges that the district court erred in finding that a five-sevenths vote was not required by the Omaha City Council to approve the major amendment to the PUD. Homeowners argue that pursuant to § 55-590(i) of the Omaha Municipal Code and § 14-405, the formal protest required a supermajority of the Omaha City Council to approve the major amendment. Section 55-590 of the Omaha Municipal Code relates to the application and adoption process of a PUD district. Specifically, Omaha Mun.Code § 55-590(i) states [a]ny protest against a PUD planned unit development overlay district shall be made and filed as provided by R.R.S.1943, § 14-405, and amendments thereto. As referenced by § 55-590(i), § 14-405 provides: Such regulations, restrictions, and boundaries may from time to time be amended, supplemented, changed, modified, or repealed. When a protest against a change of boundaries is presented to the city clerk at least six days prior to the city council vote on such change, such change-shall not become effective except by a favorable vote of five-sevenths of all members of the city council. The protest shall be in writing, signed, and sworn and acknowledged pursuant to section 64-206 by the required owners. For purposes of this section, the required owners shall mean those fee simple owners of record as recorded by the register of deeds owning at least twenty percent of the area: (1) Included in the proposed change; (2) abutting either side of the proposed change; (3) abutting the rear of the proposed change; (4) abutting the front of the proposed change; or (5) directly opposite of the proposed change on the other side of a dedicated public right-of-way and extending fifty feet on either side of such opposite lot. (Emphasis supplied.) To determine when a formal protest of a major amendment to a PUD triggers the requirement of a supermajority vote of the city council, we must examine those portions of the Omaha Municipal Code pleaded by the parties which are part of the record. See Hamersky v. Nicholson Supply Co., 246 Neb. 156, 517 N.W.2d 382 (1994). In analyzing the Omaha Municipal Code, a legislative enactment, we follow the same rules as those of statutory analysis. See, Omaha City Emp. Local 251 v. City of Omaha, 222 Neb. 412, 384 N.W.2d 271 (1986); Retired City Civ. Emp. Club of Omaha v. City of Omaha Emp. Ret. Sys., 199 Neb. 507, 260 N.W.2d 472 (1977). First, we look to the plain language of the code. In the absence of anything to the contrary, statutory language is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning; an appellate court will not resort to interpretation to ascertain the meaning of statutory words which are plain, direct, and unambiguous. Popple v. Rose, 254 Neb. 1, 573 N.W.2d 765 (1998); McAllister v. Nebraska Dept. of Corr. Servs., 253 Neb. 910, 573 N.W.2d 143 (1998). It is clear from the plain language of Omaha Mun. Code § 55-590(i) that a formal protest must be made and filed pursuant to § 14-405. Homeowners claim that Omaha Mun.Code § 55-590(i) specifically refers to any protest against a PUD and that, therefore, all protests against PUDs require a supermajority vote of the city council, regardless of the change of boundaries qualification found in § 14-405. We have stated that a statute may adopt all or a part of another statute by a specific reference, and the effect is the same as if the statute or part thereof adopted had been written into the adopting statute. Clemens v. Harvey, 247 Neb. 77, 525 N.W.2d 185 (1994). In this instance, it is a city code which has adopted a Nebraska statute by a specific reference. The adopting reference in Omaha Mun.Code § 55-590(i) does not limit the adoption to any specific portion of § 14-405. Homeowners' assertion that § 55-590(i) does not adopt the change of boundaries requirement in § 14-405 is without basis. Section 14-405 clearly states that a five-sevenths vote of the city council is necessary when a protest is against a change of boundaries. (Emphasis supplied.) There is nothing in the statute indicating that a five-sevenths vote is required to approve any other change that is protested. See § 14-405. It is not within the province of the courts to read a meaning into a statute that is not there or to read anything direct and plain out of a statute. State ex rel. City of Elkhorn v. Haney, 252 Neb. 788, 566 N.W.2d 771 (1997); Village of Winside v. Jackson, 250 Neb. 851, 553 N.W.2d 476 (1996). Accordingly, by the adoption of § 14-405, Omaha Mun.Code § 55-590(i) requires a vote of five-sevenths of the city council to approve an amendment only when a protest [is] against a change of boundaries. § 14-405. If the formal protest is unrelated to a change in boundaries, there is no requirement that there must be a supermajority vote of the city council for approval. In their petition, Homeowners never allege the protest was against a change of boundaries. Homeowners specifically allege that the formal protest was filed against a Major Amendment to a Planned Unit Development Overlay District. More accurately stated, the proposed amendment was an amendment to the development plan of the PUD. This is so because the proposed changes in the amendment deal with the design of the buildings and the utilization of the land encompassed by the PUD. Additionally, Homeowners conceded at oral argument that the actual physical placement and location of the PUD were not altered in any manner by the amendment from the original PUD, which was adopted in 1984. To get approval for a major amendment to the development plan of an existing PUD, MLP did exactly as required by the Omaha Municipal Code. Section 55-591 of the Omaha Municipal Code specifically provides for the approval of major amendments to the development plan of a PUD. Omaha Mun.Code, ch. 55, art. XI,§ 55-591 (1996). There is no requirement that a major amendment to the development plan of a PUD be approved by a five-sevenths vote of the city council. See Omaha Mun.Code § 55-591. All that is required by § 55-591 to approve a major amendment is approv[al] by the city council after a recommendation for such amendment is submitted by the planning board. This procedure, as alleged by Home-owners in their petition, was followed. A motion for judgment on the pleadings is properly granted when it appears from the pleadings that only questions of law are presented. In making such motion, the moving party admits the truth of all well-pleaded facts in the opposing party's pleadings, together with all reasonable inferences to be drawn from such facts. The moving party also admits the untruth of his own allegations insofar as they have been controverted. Bohl v. Buffalo Cty., 251 Neb. 492, 557 N.W.2d 668 (1997). However, on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, a court cannot assume the existence of facts not alleged. Hoch v. Prokop, 244 Neb. 443, 507 N.W.2d 626 (1993). The district court correctly found that a five-sevenths vote was not required by the Omaha City Council to approve a major amendment which did not involve a change in the PUD's boundaries. Therefore, assuming the truth of all facts pleaded in Homeowners' petition and all reasonable inferences to be drawn from those facts, Homeowners never stated a claim. There was neither an allegation nor an inference that the amendment constituted a change in boundaries.Notwith-standing, Homeowners attempted to argue, in their brief and at oral argument, that although not specifically alleged, a change of boundaries was implied by their general allegations. In paragraph 4 of their petition, Homeowners allege that MLP's application requested that an existing Planned Unit Development Overlay District, approved in 1984, on certain real property located informally southeast of 103rd Street and Hamilton Street, in the City of Omaha, Douglas County, Nebraska, and containing 13.2 acres, be amended to allow certain alterations. This allegation indicates that certain alterations are to be made on the existing PUD, at the same location and containing the same amount of real property. In addition, MLP's answer specifically alleges that the proposed amendment did not involve any change of boundaries of the PUD. This allegation is deemed to be true because it was never controverted by Homeowners in that Homeowners never filed a reply to MLP's answer. See Landon v. Pettijohn, 231 Neb. 837, 438 N.W.2d 757 (1989) (holding failure to file reply controverting new allegation raised in answer to petition resulted in allegation's being taken as true). Given paragraph 4 of Homeowners' petition and Home-owners' failure to controvert MLP's specific allegation that in the amendment, there were no changes required in the boundaries, the reasonable inference to be drawn is that Homeowners did not allege a change of boundaries in their petition. Consequently, the City of Omaha and MLP were entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and judgment on the pleadings was properly entered. Homeowners' first assignment of error is without merit.