NE Supreme Court Holds Annexed Area was Urban – Thereby Precluding Statutory Ban on Annexation of Agricultural Lands that were Rural in Character

This post was authored by Matthew Loescher, Esq.

The Gretna City Council adopted ordinances Nos. 2003 and 2004, which together annexed 2,953 acres contiguous or adjacent to the municipal boundaries. On the same date, the Gretna City Council adopted ordinance No. 2005, which extended Gretna’s extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction as a result of the annexations. Sarpy County brought this action in the district court for Sarpy County, seeking to enjoin the ordinances adopted by Gretna and have them declared invalid. Sarpy County contended that because the annexed area included 22 parcels with agricultural land that was rural in character, Gretna exceeded its annexation authority under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 17-407(2) when it adopted the ordinances. The district court issued its order granting Sarpy County’s motion for summary judgment and denying Gretna’s motion for summary judgment.

At the outset, the court found that the district court failed to give sufficient consideration to contemplated future development of the annexed area. Under the city’s 2017 comprehensive plan update, the proposed I-80 interchange at 192d Street and the existing Highway 370 corridor were designated as community entrance and special character areas and were expected to develop the contested areas into the city’s future growth areas. The city, the county, the state, and other governmental agencies all had plans to develop the area, because it was the fastest growing area in Nebraska. The court determined that these were characteristics “belonging to a city” and not “pertaining to the country” and were therefore urban or suburban in nature.

Parcels 19 through 21 were zoned “AG-HC,” for agricultural use with a highway corridor overlay, and were used for interim crop production at the time of this case. Parcel 22 was zoned “AGD,” for agricultural development, and was used for interim crop production and for operating a highway commercial business which operated under a special use permit. Sarpy County’s future land use plan designated these subject properties for general commercial use. Having considered the present uses of the annexed territory, as well as its contemplated future uses and existing plans for development, the court held that the annexed area is urban in character and that the ordinances were therefore a lawful exercise of the city’s annexation powers.

County of Sarpy v City of Gretna, 309 Neb. 320 (NE 5/28/2021)