State v. Benson

This is because “land mapped as a wildlife could never be designated and zoned NR-5.” The court found that “LUBA’s reading of those provisions to bar a plan amendment and zone change” is only “one plausible interpretations of those provisions,” but it is not the only one. Under Siporen v. City of Medford, 349 Or 247, 262, 243 P3d 776 (2010),

Petitioners appeal a final decision from the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). The decision was a reversal of the county’s decision that permitted a “zone change from Farm Forest (F/F) to Non-Resource 5 Acre Minimum (NR-5).” Petitioners argue that LUBA erred “because it did not defer to the county’s plausible contrary interpretation.” Respondents contend that petitioners appeal does not actually challenge what was at issue in LUBA’s decision. This is because “land mapped as a wildlife could never be designated and zoned NR-5.” The court found that “LUBA’s reading of those provisions to bar a plan amendment and zone change” is only “one plausible interpretations of those provisions,” but it is not the only one. Under Siporen v. City of Medford, 349 Or 247, 262, 243 P3d 776 (2010), LUBA is required “to defer to the county’s plausible interpretations of its own comprehensive plan.” Reversed and Remanded.