dissenting.
This case should be remanded. The Clackamas County Board of Commissioners’ findings concerning sewage, traffic and noise are wholly inadequate and are not supported by substantial evidence.
The majority concedes that the findings are inadequate, but declines to reverse because there was no assignment of error challenging the adequacy of the findings. The problem with this rationale is that there is nothing in the record from which we can discern for purposes of judicial review what the Board’s reasons were for concluding that petitioner "failed to carry his burden of proving that the proposed use will not adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood, particularly with respect to traffic, noise and sewage disposal problems.” It may be that the Board was not persuaded by the evidence offered by petitioner, but there is nothing in the record to indicate that this was so or why. The only explanation offered by the county on appeal is that it relied on the "reliable, probative and substantial evidence” offered by the opponents *14concerning the traffic, noise and sewage disposal. As the majority concedes, the opponents’ evidence with respect to traffic and noise was not substantial and for that reason alone the case should be remanded.1
The majority does not state whether or not there was substantial evidence of adverse impact caused by sewage disposal. It is questionable whether the evidence offered by opponents was substantial, since opponents’ evidence consisted solely of the testimony of lay persons who had no personal knowledge of the petitioner’s property or drain field. The evidence offered by petitioner was substantial, particularly the report of the soil scientist. But, even if the opponents’ evidence would qualify as substantial evidence, such evidence is not sufficient to support the Board’s ultimate finding of "adverse effect on the surrounding property.” The Board’s finding of adverse effect on the *15surrounding property was stated in the conjunctive with respect to "traffic, noise and sewage disposal problems.” There was not substantial evidence of adverse impact caused by traffic. Thus, one of the legs of the three-legged stool of the Board’s findings has failed. There is no indication in the record that the Board would have denied the conditional use permit on grounds of sewage disposal problems alone.
It should also be noted that the written findings concerning noise, traffic and sewage were added as an afterthought. The record indicates that the controlling consideration motivating the county’s decision was its erroneous conclusion that the proposed use was contrary to the comprehensive plan. At the conclusion of the hearing the Board of County Commissioners voted two to one to deny the permit, Commissioner Telford dissenting. In voting for the permit, Commissioner Schumacher stated his reasons:
"Ladies and Gentlemen, I think Counsel would agree that the binning issue in this matter is whether or not this application fits within the Comprehensive Plan because a conditional use must both fit the Comprehensive Plan and not be detrimental to the surrounding properties.
sf:
«* * * [T]he application must stand or fall, obviously, on whether or not it falls within the Comprehensive Plan and in my judgment it does not.
"So, Mr. Chairman, I really have no choice other than to move that the appeal of a conditional use by the Damascus Community Church be denied on the basis that the conditional use does not conform to the Clackamas County Comprehensive Plan.”
Commissioner Skoko stated his reasons:
"My main concern is that we are compelled to abide by the Comprehensive Plan and checking in between breaks, it is my feeling that the zoning prevails here in accordance with the Plan and as a result I cannot go in any other direction except to so comply and I also do feel it’s a violation of zoning which at a later time would be a *16violation of the Comprehensive Plan if the request was granted.”
It is thus not at all clear whether the county would have ever denied the conditional use permit on the grounds of noise, traffic and sewage problems alone. The conflict between the written order and the statements of the reasons given at the time of the decision should be resolved.
The majority’s description of the evidence offered by proponents and opponents is incomplete. With respect to traffic, in addition to the evidence summarized in the majority’s opinion, petitioner presented detailed testimony that the school presently requires 30 cars a day to transport 102 students plus five cars for staff and that this is far less than is required for normal church activities. With respect to noise, petitioner presented testimony showing the rural and sparsely populated nature of the neighborhood, the location of play fields with respect to nearby residences, and the testimony of immediate neighbors concerning the effect upon them. Considering the abstract nature of that which had to be proved, i.e. impact on noise and traffic, and that petitioner in effect had the burden of proving a negative, I would hold that proponents’ evidence was substantial. By similar reasoning, I would hold that proponents’ evidence concerning noise was substantial. However, the only evidence offered by proponents concerning traffic related in great part to times when school is not in session and was not substantial evidence. The one witness for the opponents on the traffic issue stated:
"I would like to talk about traffic and the noise. * * * I see the traffic every day. The traffic starts about 8:30 in the morning and seems to continue until late at night. They have activities in the buildings seven days a week. There is only one access road to the church and that’s Rust Way, that is our only access road to our neighborhood and to our homes. More often than not the cars coming from the church parking lot do not stop before entering Rust Way. I have seen cars traveling down Rust Way having to stop to allow a car to come from the parking lot. I worry about the safety of my two children. If they would want to ride a bicycle up to visit a friend I feel like I always need to walk them up the street because I am afraid they will be hit by a car.” (Emphasis supplied.)