Supremes overrule 1991 decision that allowed adjacent landowners to object to zoning changes without alleging specific injury, but allow Plaintiffs to challenge Walmart in Papillion; court ultimately approves of Papillion's rezoning for the Walmart development over landowners' objections that the city action was "spot rezoning"Smith v. City of Papillion, 270 Neb. 607 November 10, 2005. No. S-04-1358. An adjacent landowner has standing to object to the rezoning of property if such landowner shows some special injury separate from a general injury to the public. To the extent that Eastroads, Inc. v. City of Omaha, 237 Neb. 837, 467 N.W.2d 888 (1991), implies adjacent landowners have standing to object to the rezoning of property without alleging a special injury, it is disapproved. The Papillion City Council took action to amend the City of Papillion's comprehensive development plan and rezone a parcel of land to accommodate a large commercial development, adjacent landowners brought an action to declare such actions void and enjoin any activity consistent with the rezoning. The district court denied the landowners' requests, and they appealed. For the following reasons, Supreme Court affirms the judgment of the district court. ... Adjacent landowners have standing to object to zoning if they allege a specific injury, but landowners satisfied that requirement hereA An adjacent landowner has standing to object to the rezoning of property if such landowner shows some special injury separate from a general injury to the public. See, e.g., ...Lenette Realty v. City of Chesterfield, 35 S.W.3d 399 (Mo. App. 2000); Reynolds v. Dittmer, 312 N.W.2d 75 (Iowa App. 1981). To the extent that Eastroads, Inc. v. City of Omaha, 237 Neb. 837, 467 N.W.2d 888 (1991), implies adjacent landowners have standing to object to the rezoning of property without alleging a special injury, it is disapproved. ... Ordinance allowing rezoning and resolution amending the Papillion Comprehensive Development Plan were lawful Although a CDP (Development Plan) does indeed provide a long-term strategy for city development, such a characteristic does not make it legislation that must be passed by ordinance. This court has stated that a CDP is a guideline and is not binding but is merely a policy statement that may be implemented through zoning and that it is the actual zoning which has the force of law. Rezoning 75 acres of land is not unlawful "spot zoning." The Homeowners did not prove that this case involves illegal spot zoning. Bucholz v. City of Omaha, 174 Neb. 862, 120 N.W.2d 270 (1963). Omaha World Herald take on the Story: Papillion will finally get its Wal-Mart. The Nebraska Supreme Court today cleared the way for construction of a 74-acre shopping center that will include a Wal-Mart Supercenter, Lowe's home improvement store and Kohl's department store. The court affirmed a Sarpy County District Court ruling that found the Papillion City Council acted legally in approving the Market Pointe center at 72nd Street and Giles Road. The developer said he's pleased with the ruling and plans to start construction on buildings this fall, with a target opening date of Oct. 1, 2006. Eleven residents of the Hickory Estates subdivision had sued the City of Papillion, developer R.H. Johnson Co. of Kansas City, Mo., and the landowner seeking a permanent injunction to stop the project. The decision came as a surprise to one of the neighbors' attorneys, who maintained the city acted illegally. "I'm very, very, very surprised," said Omaha attorney William Gast. He said he could not comment further without reading the ruling. Neighbors alleged that the city "spot-zoned" the 74-acre site to benefit the developer and violated a well-designed comprehensive plan by amending it to allow the large stores in an area earmarked for housing and neighborhood businesses. The neighbors alleged that they would suffer "grave, permanent and irreparable injury" if the project went ahead, obstructing their views, increasing traffic and diminishing their quality of life. Papillion City Councilwoman Joni Jones said the ruling should delight the city's residents. "This is a good day," Jones said. "Papillion finally gets its Wal-Mart." While the delay was unfortunate, she said, the input from neighbors resulted in a better project. "We got more out of the developer," she said. "It's going to be nicer than any other Wal-Mart in the local area." Joni Woodruff, one of the homeowners who filed the lawsuit, said the ruling was depressing. "We never did feel like we got a fair shake from them," said Woodruff, who lives across the street from the site. "We were asked to take it on the chin for the rest of the city." Mayor James Blinn said he was happy that the high court recognized there was meaningful debate over the project in the community. Blinn pointed to the court's conclusion that ". . . the city council may not have come to the decision urged by the homeowners, but the homeowners were indeed given adequate opportunities to make their elected officials aware of their concerns." "The last thing I would have wanted was to find out there was a mistake in the process or a mistake in technique," Blinn said. "It's always our goal to do everything properly, but we're all human beings." Blinn said he was disappointed that the city had to spend money on legal fees and time fighting the lawsuit. The R.H. Johnson Co. won final approval July 20, 2004, when the council voted 8-0 to rezone the property from agricultural to commercial. The court did not accept the homeowners' argument that the council "spot zoned" the property for the sole benefit of the developer and to reap a tax windfall. The court said it gives "great deference" to a city in determining what laws should be enacted for the welfare of its people. The court said it presumes that the action is valid, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. The court said evidence showed the city studied the traffic impacts and adjusted the project's design to address concerns of landowners, specifically by prohibiting an outdoor intercom at Wal-Mart, requiring a larger number of trees and limiting the number of fast-food restaurants. The court found that the council was not required, as homeowners argued, to amend its comprehensive plan by ordinance. The judges said such plans provide a long-term strategy for the city; they are a guideline, but they are not law. Owen Buckley, president of the R.H. Johnson Co., said building construction will start this fall. The developer initially had hoped to open the first stores this fall. The lawsuit effectively delayed the project for one year, but Buckley said he saved four months by moving ahead with the grading last April. What used to be a farm field is now flattened, bare and ready for construction. Footings will be poured for some buildings weather permitting, he said. Over the winter, Buckley said, he'll finalize leases for the smaller shops and outlots and move ahead with the bidding of contracts. The center would contain 550,000 square feet of retail space, including the 213,000-square-foot Wal-Mart Supercenter, the 138,000-square-foot Lowe's home improvement store and the 88,000-square-foot Kohl's department store.