264 Or. 574, 507 P.2d 23 (Or. 1973)
Fasano v. Board of County Commissioners is a landmark Oregon Supreme Court decision that reshaped American land-use law by recharacterizing certain rezoning actions as quasi-judicial rather than purely legislative.
When a local governing body approves a zoning change for a specific tract at the request of an identified applicant, is the action legislative or quasi-judicial, and what procedural and evidentiary standards apply? Specifically, must the applicant prove consistency with the comprehensive plan and demonstrate substantial evidence of public need and site suitability, and did the county's decision here meet those requirements?
A zoning change that affects a specific tract and a small number of identifiable parties is a quasi-judicial land-use decision. As such: (1) the applicant bears the burden to prove the change is consistent with the jurisdiction's comprehensive plan; (2) the applicant must demonstrate a public need for the change and that the particular site is appropriate to meet that need; (3) the decision must be based on substantial evidence in the record; (4) procedural safeguards akin to due process apply, including notice, an opportunity to present and rebut evidence, an impartial decision maker, and written findings explaining the basis for the decision; and (5) judicial review tests the decision under a substantial-evidence standard rather than the highly deferential "fairly debatable" presumption traditionally applied to legislative zoning.
The Oregon Supreme Court held that the county's approval of the site-specific rezoning was a quasi-judicial action subject to due process-like procedures, plan-consistency requirements, and substantial-evidence review. The applicant bore the burden of proof and failed to establish, on the record, a public need for the rezoning or that the site was appropriate under the comprehensive plan. The court reversed the lower court's affirmance and remanded for further proceedings consistent with these principles.
Fasano is foundational for land-use and administrative law. It reorients rezoning of specific parcels from deferential legislative review to quasi-judicial scrutiny, demanding procedural fairness and a substantial-evidence record. The case institutionalizes comprehensive plan primacy, shifts the burden of proof to rezoning applicants, and requires explicit findings articulating public need and site appropriateness. It is widely taught because it bridges constitutional due process concepts with local governance, supplies a structured analytic method for reviewing local land-use decisions, and curbs arbitrary or spot zoning. Fasano also influenced the development of Oregon's robust planning regime and has informed rezoning practices and judicial review standards in other jurisdictions.