Fasano v. Board of County Com'rs of Washington Cty.

The court distinguished between making general land-use policy and applying an existing policy to a particular property. An ordinance establishing the P-R planned-residential classification generally was legislative because it created a rule applicable to an open class of landowners and sites. But the later decision to apply that classification to A.G.S.'s identified 32-acre parcel applied policy to a particular case, which is judicial or quasi-judicial in nature.

Treating all local zoning decisions as legislative would ignore how site-specific rezoning works in practice. Local bodies deciding individual land-use applications conduct hearings, resolve disputed facts, and make decisions with immediate effects on identified owners and neighbors. Those features call for procedural protections and judicial review beyond constitutional review for arbitrary legislation.

Accordingly, the court rejected the county's argument that the homeowners bore the burden to prove the rezoning arbitrary. A court reviewing a parcel-specific rezoning may examine whether the governing body had an adequate evidentiary basis and followed the standards governing the decision.

Oregon's planning statutes make the comprehensive plan the basic instrument of county land-use planning. The planning commission adopts the plan, while zoning ordinances are the detailed means of carrying it out. The statutes therefore treat planning and zoning as integrated parts of a single land-use-control system, rather than as unrelated exercises of county power.

ORS 215.055 requires planning and land-use regulations to promote public health, safety, and general welfare through consideration of such matters as an area's characteristics, suitability for uses, development trends, density, property values, access, resources, and the need for safe and healthful surroundings. The court understood these statutes to condition the county's zoning authority on a demonstrated connection between zoning action and the comprehensive plan's public-welfare objectives.

Because a site-specific rezoning is quasi-judicial, the usual allocation of proof applies: the party seeking change must justify it. At a minimum, that party must show a public need for the proposed kind of change and show that the need is better served by changing the particular parcel than by using other available property.

The lower courts had read earlier Oregon cases, especially Roseta, to require proof of changed conditions in the immediate neighborhood before rezoning. The Supreme Court rejected that narrow reading. Roseta required proof that a change was consistent with the comprehensive plan, not a rigid showing that physical conditions had changed.

The statutory factors governing land-use regulation are broader than physical changes in a neighborhood. Public need, urbanization, density, infrastructure, access, housing needs, and the plan's broader policies may all bear on whether a proposed change is justified. A mistake in the original plan or changed conditions can support rezoning when present, but their weight depends on the precise change sought.

The applicant's burden rises with the magnitude and likely impact of the proposed departure from existing zoning. A more disruptive change requires a more substantial showing that the proposal accords with the plan, responds to a genuine public need, and reflects careful consideration of the burden imposed on nearby owners.

The record contained only a conclusory planning-staff statement that the requested use conformed to the residential designation in the plan and met urbanization needs for increased density and different housing. It did not identify the underlying facts, explain the relevant provisions of the comprehensive plan, or demonstrate why this parcel was the appropriate site for the proposed development.

The comprehensive plan itself was not placed in the record. Without the plan's relevant terms or evidence showing how the proposed mobile-home park served them, the court could not determine whether the rezoning implemented the plan or whether the county had considered the statutory factors required by ORS 215.055.

The court also stated procedural requirements for future parcel-specific rezoning proceedings: interested parties must have an opportunity to be heard and to present and rebut evidence; the tribunal must be impartial and free of prejudicial pre-hearing or ex parte contacts; and the proceeding must produce an adequate record and findings. These safeguards follow from the quasi-judicial character of the decision.