Land Use and Zoning
264 Or. 574, 507 P.2d 23 (Or. 1973)
Study notes for Fasano v. Board of County Commissioners: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
Local governing bodies must treat zoning changes as quasi-judicial actions, requiring substantial evidence of public need and compliance with comprehensive plans.
In Fasano v. Board of County Commissioners, the Oregon Supreme Court emphasized the distinction between legislative and quasi-judicial actions in zoning cases. It ruled that site-specific zoning changes are quasi-judicial, necessitating due process protections. Professors will highlight the implications of this ruling for land use decisions, particularly how it requires that applicants provide substantial evidence of necessity and compatibility with comprehensive plans. The court's insistence on adequate procedural standards underscores the importance of public interests in zoning matters, and the ruling serves as a blueprint for assessing local government decision-making processes regarding land use.
Fasano's Formula: Proof for Permit - Public need, Plan consistency, Proper site.
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| City of Redding v. City Council | Redding involved a legislative action that allowed more leeway in decision-making and does not require the same evidentiary standards. |
| Nollan v. California Coastal Commission | Nollan focused on the extent of government demands on property owners but did not delve into procedural requirements as Fasano did. |
Establishing a robust evidentiary standard ensures that local zoning decisions reflect the needs and desires of the community, maintaining public trust.
Imposing strict evidentiary standards could hinder economic development and discourage investment in localities by creating barriers to necessary zoning changes.
Students might encounter questions on the importance of distinguishing between legislative and quasi-judicial actions in zoning law, particularly in how they apply due process standards and evidentiary requirements.