Comprehensive planning, zoning and subdivision ordinances
- copies available
Source:
Section 215.050 — Comprehensive planning, zoning and subdivision ordinances; copies available, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors215.html.
Notes of Decisions
Requirement of substantial change is not met by proof that there is need for use which would be permitted by amendment. Fasano v. Bd. of County Commrs., 7 Or App 176, 489 P2d 693 (1971), aff’d 264 Or 574, 507 P2d 23 (1973)
Subsequent creation of additional zoning classification by itself does not set aside rules governing validity of transfer, at some subsequent date, of single piece of property from established zone to zone subsequently created. Fasano v. Bd. of County Commrs., 7 Or App 176, 489 P2d 693 (1971), aff’d 264 Or 574, 507 P2d 23 (1973)
When request for zone change is made, party seeking change must show that it is in conformance with comprehensive plan as implemented by ordinance, that there is a public need for the kind of change in question, and that need is best met by proposal under consideration. Fasano v. Bd. of County Commrs., 264 Or 574, 507 P2d 23 (1973)
Orders by local governing bodies changing zoning of particular property are in nature of judicial rather than legislative acts, and so are not presumptively valid. Fasano v. Bd. of County Commrs., 264 Or 574, 507 P2d 23 (1973)
Fasano v. Washington County Comm., 264 Or 574, 507 P2d 23 (1973), requires quasi-judicial hearing when local governing body is considering rezoning of relatively small amount of property. Culver v. Dagg, 20 Or App 647, 532 P2d 1127 (1975), Sup Ct review denied
Area being rezoned was so large, and owners affected so numerous, there was no significant danger of undue influence by special private economic interests, and rezoning did not require judicial-type hearing. Culver v. Dagg, 20 Or App 647, 532 P2d 1127 (1975), Sup Ct review denied
An amendment of a comprehensive plan changing the permitted use of only a specific small parcel of land is “judicial” rather than “legislative” in nature and must be preceded by a judicial-type hearing. Marggi v. Ruecker, 20 Or App 669, 533 P2d 1372 (1975), Sup Ct review denied
The scope of judicial review of zoning agency decisions is limited to examination of the administrative record to ascertain whether: 1) the proper procedures were followed; 2) the relevant factors were considered by the agency; and 3) there was reliable, probative and substantial evidence to support the decision of the agency. Dickinson v. Bd. of County Commrs., 21 Or App 98, 533 P2d 1395 (1975)
Planning commission action was not necessary prerequisite to consideration by Board of Commissioners of proposed amendments. Sunnyside Neighborhood v. Clackamas County Commissioners, 280 Or 3, 569 P2d 1063 (1977)
This section did not require county governing body to follow strict ordinance formalities in adoption of comprehensive plan, and thus plan adopted by resolution was valid where such procedure was permissible under county charter. Fifth Ave. Corp. v. Washington County, 282 Or 591, 581 P2d 50 (1978)
Adoption of comprehensive plan by resolution, etc., is subject to referendum since it is legislative in nature, notwithstanding county charter provisions limiting referendum to ordinances. Fifth Ave. Corp. v. Washington County, 282 Or 591, 581 P2d 50 (1978)
Because this section requires governing body adoption of plan amendments whether or not governing body review is sought, failure by petitioners to exhaust remedies did not excuse governing body of statutory responsibility nor divest LUBA of jurisdiction to review dismissal of appeal from planning commission. Colwell v. Washington Co., 79 Or App 82, 718 P2d 747 (1986), Sup Ct review denied
County procedures purporting to allow planning commission rather than governing body to adopt amendment to comprehensive plan violate this section. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wash. Co., 80 Or App 34, 720 P2d 1316 (1986), Sup Ct review denied
Duties imposed on county do not create basis for tort claim upon breach of duty. SFG Income Fund, LP v. May, 189 Or App 269, 75 P3d 470 (2003)
Attorney General Opinions
Fasano v. Bd. of County Commrs., application to county governing bodies and planning commissions, (1974) Vol 36, p 960; referendum power against a county “comprehensive plan” or a zoning ordinance, (1974) Vol 36, p 1044
Law Review Citations
10 WLJ 99 (1973); 68 OLR 983 (1989)
Up to date