Board to affirm certain local government interpretations
Source:
Section 197.829 — Board to affirm certain local government interpretations, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors197.html.
Notes of Decisions
LUBA may affirm county’s interpretation of county zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan exception only if record includes language capable of being interpreted. Reeves v. Yamhill County, 132 Or App 263, 888 P2d 79 (1995)
Unless governing body expressly changes interpretation of lower body in affirming lower body’s decision, interpretation by lower body shall be treated on appeal as interpretation of governing body. Derry v. Douglas County, 132 Or App 386, 888 P2d 588 (1995)
Goal or rule compliance challenge to interpretation that complies with acknowledged plan may not be brought if direct goal or rule compliance challenge to acknowledged plan is unavailable under ORS 197.835. Friends of Neabeack Hill v. City of Philomath, 139 Or App 39, 911 P2d 350 (1996), Sup Ct review denied
Local body interpretation is to be reviewed to determine whether it is clearly wrong, not whether it is right. Huntzicker v. Washington County, 141 Or App 257, 917 P2d 1051 (1996), Sup Ct review denied; deBardelaben v. Tillamook County, 142 Or App 319, 922 P2d 683 (1996)
Need for or sufficiency of local body exceptions to state planning goals is question of state law. Leathers v. Marion County, 144 Or App 123, 925 P2d 148 (1996)
Where local government does not expressly interpret standard, interpretation may be inferable from application of standard in decision. Alliance for Responsible Land Use v. Deschutes County, 149 Or App 259, 942 P2d 836 (1997)
Reviewing body’s exercise of authority to interpret previously uninterpreted local provision is discretionary. Opp v. City of Portland, 153 Or App 10, 955 P2d 768 (1998), Sup Ct review denied
Court will reverse local land use decision for failure to allow additional evidence regarding interpretation of local legislation only if: 1) interpretation significantly changes existing interpretation or exceeds range of interpretations that could reasonably have been anticipated by parties; and 2) party seeking reversal demonstrates to Land Use Board of Appeals that it can produce specific evidence differing in substance from earlier evidence and directly responsive to unanticipated interpretation. Gutoski v. Lane County, 155 Or App 369, 963 P2d 145 (1998)
Local interpretation of ordinance is not required to follow doctrine of ejusdem generis or other interpretive methodology. Department of Transportation v. City of Mosier, 161 Or App 252, 984 P2d 351 (1999)
Where comprehensive plan or land use regulation does not address situation, local government’s unsupported interpretation of plan or regulation for purpose of resolving situation is not entitled to deference. Foland v. Jackson County, 215 Or App 157, 168 P3d 1238 (2007), Sup Ct review denied
To determine plausibility of local government’s interpretation, LUBA must determine (1) whether local government decision is interpretation and (2) extent to which local government decision comports with express statutory language. Siporen v. City of Medford, 349 Or 247, 243 P3d 776 (2010)
Law Review Citations
36 WLR 441 (2000)
Up to date