Opinion ID: 2157819
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Rezoning Was Consistent With City's Duty to Promote Health, Safety, and Welfare of Citizens.

Text: The Homeowners argue that the rezoning of the site was done for the sole benefit of the developers, The R.H. Johnson Company and Papillion Place, constituting spot zoning. In addition, the Homeowners argue that the rezoning was approved only in order to take advantage of resulting tax benefits. Therefore, the Homeowners argue that the rezoning was arbitrary and capricious and should be declared void. Section 19-901(1) states: For the purpose of promoting health, safety, morals, or the general welfare of the community, the legislative bodies in cities of the first and second class and in villages may adopt zoning regulations which regulate and restrict the height, number of stories, and size of buildings and other structures, the percentage of lot that may be occupied, the size of yards, courts, and other open spaces, the density of population, and the location and use of buildings, structures, and land for trade, industry, residence, or other purposes. In addition, § 19-903 requires that zoning regulations be designed to lessen street congestion; secure safety from flood, fire, panic, and other dangers; provide adequate light and air; prevent overcrowding; facilitate transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements; protect property against depreciation; protect the tax base; secure economy in governmental expenditures; and preserve and protect historic areas. Further, Papillion Mun. Code, ch. 205, art. I, § 205-3 (2003), provides that the purposes of zoning are to serve the public health, safety, and welfare; classify property to reflect its suitability for specific uses; provide for sound, attractive development; encourage compatibility of adjacent land uses; protect environmentally sensitive areas; and advance the objectives of the CDP. [11-14] Courts will generally presume that legislative or rulemaking bodies, in enacting ordinances or rules, acted within their authority and that the burden rests on those who challenge their validity. K N Energy v. Cities of Alliance & Oshkosh, 266 Neb. 882, 670 N.W.2d 319 (2003). The validity of a zoning ordinance must be determined by an examination of the facts presented in the particular case. Bucholz v. City of Omaha, 174 Neb. 862, 120 N.W.2d 270 (1963). This court gives great deference to a city's determination of which laws should be enacted for the welfare of the people. When the city rezones a parcel of property, we presume the validity of that action absent clear and satisfactory evidence to the contrary. Giger v. City of Omaha, 232 Neb. 676, 442 N.W.2d 182 (1989). When the city considers a request for rezoning based upon a plan or representation by the developer, it is presumed that the city grants the request after making the determination that the plan as represented is in the interest of public health, safety, morals, and the general welfare. Id. [15-17] The Homeowners contend this case presents an example of spot zoning. Spot zoning generally refers to the singling out of a small parcel of land for a use or uses classified differently from the surrounding area, primarily for the benefit of the owner of the property so zoned and to the detriment of the area and other owners therein. The validity of spot zoning depends on more than the size of the spot, and spot zoning as such is not necessarily invalid, but its validity depends upon the facts and circumstances appearing in each particular case. Bucholz, supra . In Bucholz, this court addressed whether a zoning change was arbitrary and capricious and therefore unconstitutional spot zoning, listing three elements typically present in invalid spot zoning: a small parcel of land is singled out for special and privileged treatment, the singling out is not in the public interest but serves only the interests of the landowner, and the action is not in accord with a comprehensive plan. [18] In this case, the Homeowners failed to present evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption of validity given to the city's actions in approving ordinance No. 1443 and the related resolutions and thus showing that such action by the city was arbitrary and capricious. It is difficult to characterize a 75-acre development as a small parcel of land; indeed, the size and scope of the development form the basis of the Homeowners' opposition. As will be discussed in more detail below, the city determined that the economic development promised by the Market Pointe project was in the public interest. And, as noted above, the city duly amended its CDP after considering its effects. Although the Homeowners presented the expert testimony of McClure in support of their contention that their property values would decrease as a result of the Market Pointe project, such evidence does not establish that the rezoning is either illegal or arbitrary and capricious. The Homeowners appear to rely primarily on the potential consequences of the new development on their property values as justification for invalidating the rezoning ordinance. However, the exercise of the power to zone may not be denied on the ground that individual property rights may be adversely affected thereby. Bucholz v. City of Omaha, 174 Neb. 862, 120 N.W.2d 270 (1963). In short, the Homeowners did not prove that this case involves illegal spot zoning. The Homeowners further argue that the city's attention to the economic benefits of the Market Pointe project was an improper basis for rezoning. The mayor testified about the shortage of retail development in Papillion and the complaints by residents having to travel long distances to shop. The mayor testified about the city's interest in preventing this leakagethat is, preventing Papillion residents from going outside the community to shop. Specifically, the mayor testified that around 50 percent of the dollars spent by Papillion residents are spent outside Papillion, substantially higher than the 8- to 11-percent leakage in LaVista and Bellevue. The mayor indicated that retail development in Papillion would be convenient for Papillion residents and that the city would benefit from the revenue from commercial development. Although the city made clear its interest in the economic benefits of the rezoning, the record shows that the city did not rezone the site without evaluating the potential consequences to surrounding areas. The evidence presented shows that the city studied the effects of the proposed development on traffic and arranged for numerous adjustments to the design of the development in order to address specific concerns of adjacent landowners (i.e., no outdoor intercom, larger number of trees, limited fast-food restaurants). The planning commission and city council heard hours of testimony from adjacent landowners regarding concerns about the Market Pointe project, but ultimately, the planning commission unanimously recommended approval of the Market Pointe project zoning change, and the city council adopted the zoning change by a unanimous vote. In sum, based on the record in this case, the Homeowners failed to overcome the presumption that the city acted within its zoning power and did so in pursuit of the health, safety, and welfare of Papillion residents.