Fasano v. Board of County Commissioners
507 P.2d 23 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A local government's decision to rezone a specific parcel of land is a quasi-judicial act, not a legislative one. Therefore, the party seeking the zone change bears the burden of proving that the change conforms to the comprehensive plan by showing a public need for the change and that the proposed site is the best location to meet that need.
Facts:
- A.G.S. Development Company owned a 32-acre parcel of land in Washington County, Oregon.
- The county's 1959 comprehensive plan designated the area as 'residential,' and the property was zoned R-7 (Single Family Residential).
- In 1963, the county created a P-R (Planned Residential) 'floating zone' classification, which could be applied to specific properties upon approval.
- A.G.S. Development Company applied to have its 32-acre parcel rezoned from R-7 to P-R to construct a mobile home park.
- A group of homeowners in the area, including the plaintiffs (Fasano), opposed the proposed zone change.
Procedural Posture:
- The Washington County Planning Commission failed to approve the zone change requested by A.G.S. Development Company.
- The Board of County Commissioners of Washington County subsequently held a hearing and approved the zone change.
- Fasano and other homeowners (plaintiffs) applied for and received a writ of review of the Board's action in the state trial court.
- The trial court reversed the Board's order, finding in favor of the plaintiffs and disallowing the zone change.
- The Board of County Commissioners and A.G.S. Development Company (defendants/appellants) appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision.
- The Oregon Supreme Court granted review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a county's decision to rezone a single parcel of land a legislative act entitled to a presumption of validity, or a quasi-judicial act that requires the proponent of the change to prove its conformance with the comprehensive plan?
Opinions:
Majority - Howell, J.
No. A county's decision to rezone a specific parcel of land is a quasi-judicial act, not a legislative act, and is therefore not entitled to a presumption of validity. The court distinguished between ordinances that lay down general policies applicable to an open class of individuals (legislative) and those that apply a general rule to a specific individual or piece of property (quasi-judicial). Because a site-specific rezoning is a quasi-judicial act, the burden of proof falls on the party seeking the change. This party must show that the change conforms with the comprehensive plan. This proof must, at a minimum, demonstrate (1) a public need for a change of the kind in question, and (2) that this need will be best served by changing the classification of the particular property in question as compared with other available properties. The court found that the record in this case, which contained only conclusory statements from the planning staff, was insufficient to meet this burden.
Concurring - Bryson, J.
No. The concurring opinion agrees with the majority's legal reasoning but writes separately to emphasize the prohibitive cost and extended uncertainty that zoning disputes impose on average homeowners. The opinion details the multi-level, lengthy judicial process this case went through, arguing that such a system is not sustainable for citizens or the courts. While the new rules adopted by the majority are sound, the concurrence calls upon the legislative branch to devise a new, simplified statutory procedure to expedite finality in these land use decisions.
Analysis:
This landmark case fundamentally shifted land use law by recharacterizing site-specific rezoning decisions from legislative to quasi-judicial acts. This change stripped such decisions of their presumption of validity and placed a significant burden of proof on the proponents of the change. The 'Fasano factors'—requiring proof of public need and site suitability—created a more rigorous standard for justifying zone changes and empowered citizens to challenge development proposals by holding local governments accountable to their comprehensive plans. This decision has had a profound and lasting impact on zoning procedures and judicial review standards across the United States.
Unlock the full brief for Fasano v. Board of County Commissioners