Landwatch Lane County v. Lane County

The phrase “based on” as used in HB 3362 was ambiguous, and the legislative history showed that the legislature intended to allow the challenge petitioner brought.

Petitioner challenged Lane County’s 2015 approval of intervenor-respondent’s application for a forest template dwelling, asserting that the county relied on forged documents to verify lot legality. The Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) dismissed the challenge, concluding that HB 3362(4)(1)(b), which allows for such a challenge when the approval is based on forged documents, was unambiguous and did not apply. LUBA reasoned that the county’s decision was not sufficiently “based on” the allegedly forged materials. On appeal, petitioner asserted that LUBA erred because the phrase “based on” in HB 3362 is ambiguous and the legislative history resolves ambiguity in petitioner’s favor.

On review, the Court of Appeals held that LUBA’s final order was unlawful, because the phrase “based on” as used in HB 3362 was ambiguous, and the legislative history showed that the legislature intended to allow the challenge petitioner brought. The court reviewed the legal lot verification and certification process for forest template dwelling approvals and determined the county must have fundamentally relied on the allegedly forged deeds and documents to reach its decision. Additionally, the court determined the legislature specifically had petitioner’s 2015 forest template dwelling approval in mind when it passed HB 3362, as well as the intent to allow for an otherwise untimely challenge. Thus, the court REVERSED and REMANDED.