## Facts

- A.G.S. Development Company owned a 32-acre parcel in Washington County, Oregon, zoned R-7 (single-family residential) under a 1959 zoning map and designated for residential use in the 1959 comprehensive plan.
- A.G.S. sought a zone change to P-R (planned residential), a floating/special zone that would allow a mobile home park and increased density.
- The county planning commission did not approve the requested change.
- The Board of County Commissioners approved the rezoning, relying largely on generalized findings that the change would meet urbanization-related housing needs.
- Nearby homeowners, including Fasano, opposed the rezoning on grounds including traffic and school impacts and inconsistency with the comprehensive plan.
- On writ of review, the trial court reversed the Board’s order; the Court of Appeals affirmed, including on the ground that plan consistency was not shown.

## Issues

1. Whether rezoning a specific tract is a legislative act entitled to strong deference or a judicial/quasi-judicial act requiring closer review.
2. Who bears the burden to justify a zone change under an existing comprehensive plan, and what must be shown.
3. Whether a zone change must be demonstrated to conform to the comprehensive plan.
4. Whether the Board’s findings and evidentiary record were sufficient to support the rezoning.

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts and invalidated the rezoning from R-7 to P-R.
- The court held that tract-specific rezoning is judicial/quasi-judicial in nature, requiring a record and findings sufficient for meaningful judicial review.
- The court placed the burden on the proponent of the rezoning to show that the change serves the public interest and conforms to the comprehensive plan.
- The court concluded the Board’s findings and supporting evidence were too generalized and conclusory to demonstrate plan conformity or justify the change.

## Legal Principles

- A decision that applies existing land-use policy to a specific parcel is quasi-judicial, not purely legislative, and is subject to meaningful judicial review based on the record.
- The proponent of a tract-specific rezoning bears the burden to prove that the change is in the public interest and consistent with the comprehensive plan.
- The comprehensive plan is the controlling framework for zoning and rezoning; departures must be justified by evidence tied to the plan’s policies.
- Conclusory findings and generalized statements about housing needs or density, without specific factual support and plan-based analysis, are insufficient to sustain a tract-specific rezoning on review.

## Conclusion

The court treated tract-specific rezoning as a quasi-judicial act and required the applicant and approving body to carry the burden of proving plan consistency and public interest through specific findings supported by a reviewable record; because that showing was not made, the rezoning was set aside.


Fasano v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 264 Or. 574, 507 P.2d 23 (Or. 1973)