LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County

Under interpretation of the statutory text, “there is no more persuasive evidence of the intent of the legislature than the words by which the legislature undertook to give expression to its wishes.” State v. Branch, 362 Or 351 (2018).

Petitioner appealed LUBA’s final order in reversing the county’s approval decision. Petitioner assigned error to LUBA’s application of the 2013 Act and OAR 660-033-0130 requirements. On appeal, petitioner argued that the five year limit in the 2013 Act does not apply to dwellings that were destroyed or demolished and that LUBA misread the text of the statute, specifically the word “unless”. In response, respondent argued that LUBA’s interpretation was correct. Under interpretation of the statutory text, “there is no more persuasive evidence of the intent of the legislature than the words by which the legislature undertook to give expression to its wishes. ” State v. Branch, 362 Or 351 (2018). The court held that the interpretation of LUBA was incorrect because the legislative history showed that sponsors and supporters of HB 2746, in addition to the House Committee on Land Use amended HB 2746 that the statute exempted destroyed or demolished buildings. Reversed and remanded.