VanSickle v. Klamath County

Adequate findings are required to support quasi-judicial land use decisions and such findings must identify the relevant approval standards, set out facts which are believed and relied upon, and must include explanations of how those facts lead to the decision on compliance with the approval standards.

Petitioners appeal a decision by the board of county commissioners (commissioners) approving an application to change the comprehensive plan and zone map designation of a five-acre parcel from Forestry/Range to General Commercial Use. The owner of the five-acre parcel’s application to the planning commission proposed to re-designate and rezone the property to add a gas station and a laundromat next to the owner’s pre-existing convenience store. The planning commission denied the proposal, but the commissioners approved it. Petitioners appealed.

Petitioners’ first, second, and third assignments of error challenged the adequacy of the commissioners’ findings to support its conclusion that the application satisfies Klamath County Land Development Code (LCD) Articles 47 and 48. Petitioners argued that the Revised Staff Report and the applicant’s Burden of Proof Statement did not contain adequate findings to explain the commissioners’ decision to approve the application. LUBA noted that there was no evidence that the Revised Staff Report was adopted and used as the commissioners’ findings, but assuming that it was adopted LUBA agreed with the petitioners that the findings were indeed inadequate. Generally, findings must identify the relevant approval standards, set out the facts which are believed and relied upon, and explain how those facts lead to the decision on compliance with the approval standards. LUBA found that under the Revised Staff Report the relevant Land Development Codes were cited, but the pertinent subsections were not. Furthermore, any criteria’s cited as being met not only did not set out the facts relied on but also included no explanation of what lead the commissioners to the conclusion that the criteria were satisfied. However, LUBA did point out that Exhibit 2, the Burden of Proof Statement, that was attached to the Revised Staff Report did a slightly better job in explaining the commissioners’ reasoning, but the Revised Staff Report did not contain any language that attempted to incorporate the document as findings or additional findings in support of the commissioners’ decision. Thus, LUBA was unable to ascertain the evidence that the commissioners may have relied on to determine whether the commissioners’ conclusion was proper. Therefore, LUBA held that the commissioners must point to the relevant approval standards and set out facts that it relied on to explain why it approved the application. REMANDED.