Siegert v. Crook County

The standard of review for a zoning ordinance is limited to whether the county’s determination is plausible. If the local government plausibly interprets its own regulations that interpretation must be affirmed, unless it is inconsistent with all of the express language or inconsistent with the policies underlying the regulation.

Siegert appealed a Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) decision affirming the Crook County's approval of a dog breeding kennel in a zone where such kennels are currently not permitted by the zoning code. According to Crook County, the kennel existed when the current code was enacted, and that under the 1973 code the kennel was permitted. The Court of Appeals determined that if Crook County's review of the ordinance was plausible, then its judgment was plausible. The Court found that breeding kennels were not expressly prohibited under the 1973 ordinance, and that one section listed permissible uses of the land for farming. Moreover, permissible farming activities included: animal husbandry and dog breeding kennels. Siegert argued that the uses did not expressly list kennels, kennels were expressly permitted in other zones, and separate sections defined farming and kennels. However, the Court held that Crook County’s interpretation was entitled to deference because its interpretation of the ordinance was plausible, and the interpretation of animal husbandry was not inconsistent with the language of the code. Affirmed