Towey v. City of Hood River

"LUBA is entitled to deference in the interpretation of its own administrative rule[s] if its interpretation is plausible and not inconsistent with the rule, the rule’s context, or any other source of law.” Maguire v. Clackamas County, 250 Or App 146, 162 (2012).

Petitioners (collectively “Towey”) failed to timely file their petition for review to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). Crowley, however, did timely file her petition for review as Intervenor-Petitioner. LUBA issued a final order and opinion dismissing the appeal on the grounds that, under LUBA’s administrative rules, Towey’s petition failed to comply with filing deadlines and Crowley, as an intervenor-petitioner, was not an eligible party to file an appeal. Towey and Crowley assigned error to LUBA’s order and opinion, arguing LUBA lacked the authority to dismiss the appeal and exceeded its statutory authority by impermissibly limiting Crowley’s party status. “LUBA is entitled to deference in the interpretation of its own administrative rule[s] if its interpretation is plausible and not inconsistent with the rule, the rule’s context, or any other source of law.” Maguire v. Clackamas County, 250 Or App 146, 162 (2012). The Court determined that LUBA interpreted its rules appropriately in dismissing the appeal in its final order and opinion. Towey failed to timely file their petition and conform to the rules when requesting a time extension, and the language of the text supports the conclusion that Crowley does not have a right to independently maintain an appeal as an intervenor-petitioner. Affirmed.