A-16-0126, Daniel M. Latenser (Appellant) v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Omaha, et al. and The Intercessors of the Lamb, Inc.
Douglas County, District Court Judge Thomas A. Otepka
Attorney for Appellant: Daniel M. Latenser, Pro Se
Attorney for Appellees (Omaha Zoning Board of Appeals and City of Omaha, Nebraska): Alan M. Thelen, Jennifer J. Taylor (City Attorney’s Office)
Attorney for Appellee (Intercessors of the Lamb, Inc.): David C. Levy, Krista M. Eckhoff (Baird Holm LLP)
Civil Action: Zoning Board of Appeals
Action Taken by Trial Court: The district court affirmed the Zoning Board’s decision to deny Latenser’s appeal.
Assignments of Error on Appeal: On appeal, Latenser assigns that the district court erred in: (1) naming the plaintiff as Omaha attorney David Latenser rather than his name Daniel Latenser, (2) using the defendants’ brief on appeal nearly verbatim in its findings of fact, analysis, and final order, (3) not referring to points of evidence raised in Latenser’s brief or proceedings, (4) not responding to Latenser’s request for a decision of law on Omaha Municipal Code § 55-769(b) as it pertains to § 55-769(g)(2) used in allowing dwelling units as accessory residential and incidental uses to a special use permit for religious assembly, (5) accepting evidence from sources lacking credibility and ignoring evidence and statements from other conflicting sources, (6) ignoring planning department allowance of modifications of the chapel on 4210 Brother Rick Plaza to include two external attached accessory residential units specifically not allowed before, (7) not enforcing the authority of the city council to review and approve any major modification to special use permits provided by Omaha Municipal Code § 55-894(m)(2), (8) not recognizing the limits placed on accessory apartments and the requirements of surrounding landowners to approve their use, (9) applying an updated municipal ordinance for lapse of a special use permit to permit the technically lapsed years, (10) ignoring the Northern Hills Overlay requirements for city council approval of grading, earthmoving, and drainage work in the reserve zoning district, (11) allowing conversion of garage to a residence/chapel/meditation house without evidence or benefit of either building or use permits compliance, (12) allowing the planning department to claim that periodic visitors to a property are not subject to requirements of no more than three unrelated individuals in a single family residence thereby violating Omaha Municipal Code and the special use permit, (13) allowing the scope of a special purpose religious assembly permit to be expanded from the city council approved 8 acres to include a 74 acre collection of six parcels spread across more than one-half mile, (14) ignoring religious assembly in single family homes without a permit, (15) accepting the planning departments proposition that zoning and permit citation and enforcement was a discretionary activity and in citing RLUIPA as a justification, (16) allowing the issuance of a retroactive building permit, (17) finding that a failed storm water injection well and mass grading built without special use permit required by the Northern Hills Overlay did not exist, (18) not reviewing evidence of special use permit violations, (19) allowing ex parte communications and conflicts of interest as part of the Zoning Board process, (20) allowing attorney Alan Thelan to represent both the planning department and the Zoning Board while the Zoning Board was acting in a quasi-judicial role reviewing the decisions of the planning department, (21) modifying the conditions imposed by the city council for a special use permit for religious assembly, (22) ignoring the 2003 Zoning Board vote denying variances and ordering the return of property to single family residential use, (23) ignoring the fact that the Intercessors’ application for variances were not uses that the city council could authorize, (24) finding that the Zoning Board application did not stay proceedings pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 14-410, (25) ignoring the failure of the planning department to transmit zoning board petitions to the Zoning Board in violation of § 14-410 thereby depriving Latenser of due process, and (26) finding that Latenser was a party to a prior lawsuit.