Fasano v. Board of County Cmmissioners of Washington County

1973

Venue: OR SC
Facts: Perhaps under influence from some developers, the county commission agrees to re-zone some property, thereby devaluing some other (residential) property.
Posture: Trial court reversed the commissioners' order; affirmed on appeal. Appeal.
Issue:
  1. By what standards does a county commission exercise its authority in zoning matters?
  2. Who has the burden of meeting those standards when a request for a zoning change is made?
  3. What is the scope of court review of those actions?
Holding:
  1. By statute, there's a comprehensive plan.
  2. The party requesting the change.
  3. Whether the burden is met.

    4. Affirmed.

Rule: The party requesting the change must show:
  1. That there's a public need for the kind of change proposed.
  2. That this need will be best served by this particular change.
Reasoning: Generally, legislative acts are presumed to be valid, but zoning is kind of an exception, because local and small decision-making groups are different from state and national legislatures.

The comprehensive plan states the policy, and that's fine. What we need to determine is whether the proposed change lives up to the plan, because the legislature's grant of zoning authority to the county board is conditioned on being used to further the general welfare of the community.

There just isn't enough evidence here to meet the burden stated above.
Dicta: Bryson, concurring: By the way, Fasano is an attorney: no ordinary citizen would have underwritten and endured all this process. We need a simplified manner of resolving these disputes, because there are going to be more of them, so the legislature should act to create one.