Opinion ID: 2135946
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: change in zoning

Text: We begin our consideration of the first aspect of that question by recalling that in reviewing the decision of a city council, it is presumed that the council acted in good faith, with honest motives, and for the purpose of promoting the public good and protecting the public interest. Day v. City of Beatrice, 169 Neb. 858, 865, 101 N.W.2d 481, 487 (1960). Accord Best v. City of Omaha, 138 Neb. 325, 293 N.W. 116 (1940). Furthermore, as stated in McCrea v. Cunningham, 202 Neb. 638, 648, 277 N.W.2d 52, 58 (1979): A legal presumption exists in favor of validity, and unless the contrary appears upon the face of the ordinance, the burden is upon the party attacking it as invalid to show by clear and unequivocal evidence that the regulation imposed by it is so arbitrary, unreasonable, or confiscatory as to amount to depriving such party of property without due process of law.... Accord, Bucholz v. City of Omaha, 174 Neb. 862, 120 N.W.2d 270 (1963); Weber v. City of Grand Island, 165 Neb. 827, 87 N.W.2d 575 (1958); City of Omaha v. Glissmann, 151 Neb. 895, 39 N.W.2d 828 (1949), appeal dismissed 339 U.S. 960, 70 S.Ct. 1002, 94 L.Ed. 1370 (1950), reh'g denied 340 U.S. 847, 71 S.Ct. 15, 95 L.Ed. 621. The presumption is, of course, rebuttable. In re Estate of Novak, 235 Neb. 939, 458 N.W.2d 221 (1990). In Whitehead Oil I, several cases from other jurisdictions were relied upon as persuasive authority for the proposition that where a zoning authority is guilty of misconduct or bad faith in its dealings with the applicant for a use permit in accordance with the then existing zoning regulation or arbitrarily and unreasonably adopts a new regulation in order to frustrate the applicant's plans for development rather than to promote the general welfare, the new regulation may not be applied retroactively. 234 Neb. at 534, 451 N.W.2d at 706-07. The decisions on this issue are necessarily driven by the facts of each case, and because of the heavy presumption of validity discussed earlier, there is a plethora of reported decisions affirming the denial of a building or similar permit. See, generally, Annot., Retroactive Effect of Zoning Regulation, in Absence of Saving Clause, on Pending Application for Building Permit, 50 A.L.R.3d 596 (1973). Obviously, jurisdictions vary in their analytical approaches, some making it more difficult for the property owner to prevail than others. As a result, we, in reviewing the district court's resolution of this case, focus on the cases cited in Whitehead Oil I and similar decisions in which denial of the permit sought was held to be arbitrary and capricious. For example, in April 1963, the applicant in Commercial Prop., Inc. v. Peternel, 418 Pa. 304, 211 A.2d 514 (1965), sought approval of a site plan for construction of a shopping center, which site plan was revised after objections were posed at a public hearing. Further revisions were made due to additional objections; however, in June 1963, the appropriate authority denied the plan notwithstanding the revisions which had been made and issued a letter outlining 16 objections to be overcome in order to secure approval. Meanwhile, on July 8, a proposal to rezone the property from commercial to residential was introduced. In late July, the applicant's site plan was approved by the appropriate intermediate authority as being in technical compliance. However, the township refused to issue a grading permit and, because of the pending zoning change, in November denied the applicant's request for a building permit. The change of zone was not enacted until June 1964, long after a mandamus action had been filed by the applicant. The appellate court held that the applicant had met all requirements for the issuance of a building permit and that mandamus was proper. It agreed with the lower court's conclusion that the sole purpose of the zoning change was to prevent the applicant from constructing the planned project, and the zoning change was therefore arbitrary and unreasonable. It wrote that in so deciding, it imputed no personal vindictiveness to the township officials who apparently were striving to maintain the high character of their bailiwick and to represent the desires of their constituency. But, while their motives may have been of the highest sort, their course of action was ill conceived. Id. at 311-12, 211 A.2d at 519. In Nott v. Wolff, 18 Ill.2d 362, 163 N.E.2d 809 (1960), the property owner, in October 1956, sought a building permit for construction of a motel in an area zoned to allow such use. In November, a change of zone to preclude the use was introduced, and it was subsequently adopted the following January. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel issuance of the permit and its holding that the change of zone was invalid. Although the appellate court appears to balance the interests at issue between the applicant and adjoining owners, it held that the enactment of this ordinance was more emotional than necessary and was therefore arbitrary and unreasonable. Id. at 369, 163 N.E.2d at 813. A building permit was denied in Willingham v. City of Dearborn, 359 Mich. 7, 101 N.W.2d 294 (1960), on the basis that the setback was inadequate; however, the relevant ordinances contained no setback requirements. After a writ of mandamus was filed, the city amended the ordinance to include the requirement, then sought to interpose it as an objection. The court affirmed the trial court's refusal to consider the amendment and its issuance of the mandamus. In much the same fashion, the court in Sunset View Cemetery Association v. Kraintz, 196 Cal.App.2d 115, 16 Cal.Rptr. 317 (1961), invalidated an emergency ordinance enacted 1 day after a writ of mandamus ordering the city to accept the application for a building permit authorizing the construction of a mortuary. The ordinance rezoned the area around the property in question so as to preclude putting the property in question to mortuary or related uses. The appellate court, in so holding, declared: Nothing in the record in the instant case indicates that the ordinance formed any part of a zoning plan or that appellant had even contemplated the ordinance before the trial court's first decision; the enactment of the ordinance stemmed from the county's attempt to frustrate respondent's plans. The generality of the language of the ordinance does not conceal its single, realistic purpose: the prohibition of respondent's mortuary. As amicus curiae in behalf of respondent state, Such an isolation of one party as the object of the Board's legislative action is a plain discrimination; one that cannot survive testing under accepted principles of constitutional law. Id. at 123-24, 16 Cal.Rptr. at 322-23. Other cases with holdings similar to those discussed above include Marmah, Inc. v. Greenwich, 176 Conn. 116, 405 A.2d 63 (1978); Linda Dev. Corp. v. Plymouth Twp. et al., 3 Pa.Commw. 334, 281 A.2d 784 (1971); Limekiln Golf C., Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Adj., 1 Pa.Commw. 499, 275 A.2d 896 (1971) (reversing local authority's denial of special exception permit and remanding to township for determination on that discretionary matter, due to invalid subsequent zoning ordinance); Brown v. Terhune, 125 N.J.L. 618, 18 A.2d 73 (1941), appeal dismissed 127 N.J.L. 554, 23 A.2d 575 (1942); and State ex rel. Humble Oil & Ref. Co. v. Wahner, 25 Wis.2d 1, 130 N.W.2d 304 (1964). The common factor in the foregoing cases is the incorporation of zoning changes contemporaneously with the denial of a formerly permitted use. Here, the larger parcel had been zoned for over two decades so as to permit the use Whitehead Oil sought. Although the neighborhood shopping center designation was not retained for the larger parcel in the 1977 and 1985 comprehensive plans, no effort had been made to reflect that the city anticipated a change in the zoning designation of the parcel. In fact, a substantial portion of the larger parcel was developed for uses consistent with the commercial designation, and except for Whitehead Oil's property, a use permit had been issued for all of the remaining undeveloped area of the larger parcel for use as an office-retail park. As noted in Pine Hill Concrete Mix Corporation v. Town of Newstead Zoning Board of Appeals, 161 A.D.2d 1187, 559 N.Y.S.2d 48, 49 (1990), appeal denied 77 N.Y.2d 803, 569 N.E.2d 874, 568 N.Y.S.2d 15 (1991), `the inclusion of a use in the ordinance is a per se finding that it is in harmony with the neighborhood.' Although the change of zoning designation encompassed a larger area, the true intent of the change was that only Whitehead Oil's property be affected, and that was the result achieved. Likewise, the simultaneous issuance of a new use permit to Lincoln Mutual for an office park rather than the virtually identical office-retail park shields the larger parcel, except for that portion which constitutes Whitehead Oil's property. The fact that the petition for a change of zoning was filed by the protesting neighborhood association on the same day the commission was scheduled to issue a recommendation is not insignificant. Although the neighborhood association's express objective to prevent the construction of a convenience store should not be imputed to the city, the circumstance indicates what drove the public opposition and the city's action, a specific reaction against a previously permitted use. Even more troubling is the delay of action on Whitehead Oil's application so as to allow the change of zoning request to catch up with the use permit such that the two could be considered in conjunction with each other. It is precisely this type of delay which is so common and disapproved in the authorities cited in Whitehead Oil I. The fact that the city reacted to the arguably valid concerns of its citizens in the area does not mean that the decision is valid as being based upon concerns for the general welfare. Nor is the city's denial of the existence of any ill will toward Whitehead Oil of any moment. Whatever the motives, a zoning decision which does not promote the general welfare is arbitrary and unreasonable. Commercial Prop., Inc. v. Peternel, 418 Pa. 304, 211 A.2d 514 (1965). The record convinces us that the change in the zoning designation did not promote a legitimate governmental interest in conformance with the comprehensive plan, but merely thwarted Whitehead Oil's previously permissible planned use. We therefore independently reach the same conclusion as the district court, that the city acted arbitrarily and capriciously in changing the zoning designation of the larger parcel from B-2 to 0-3.