Hunt v. City of the Dalles

LUBA must affirm a city’s interpretation of its own comprehensive plan and land use regulations if the interpretation is plausible and not inconsistent with their express language, purpose, or policy, even if petitioner presents or LUBA conceives a stronger interpretation.

Petitioner appeals a city decision approving a minor partition and adjustment. The subject property is planned and zoned Low Density Residential (RL). Intervenor applied to partition the property into two lots with an adjustment of the minimum lot size and width, and proposed construction of new single-family dwellings on the lots. The city council approved the application, and this appeal followed.

The City of the Dalles Land Use Development Ordinance (LUDO) 10.3.080.020 and 10.2.030 prohibit adjustments to increase the number of dwelling units per gross acre in the RL zone, but do not specify the denominator to be used. The comprehensive plan establishes a density range of three to six dwelling units per gross acre in the RL zone. The city interpreted the LUDO to use the gross acreage of the subdivision as the denominator in determining whether a proposed adjustment increases density, and interpreted the phrase “increase in density in the RL zone” to mean an increase beyond the range allowed in the comprehensive plan. Thus, while city found that the adjustment would increase the number of dwelling units in the subdivision from 3.97 per gross acre to between 4.19 and 4.53 per gross acre, the city approved the application because it did not increase the density above the range allowed by the comprehensive plan.

In the sole assignment of error, petitioner argues that the city’s interpretation is inconsistent with the text, context, and purpose of the code and that density must be calculated based on the acreage of the subject property, not the subdivision. LUBA must affirm a city’s interpretation of its own comprehensive plan and land use regulations if the interpretation is plausible and not inconsistent with their express language, purpose, or policy, even if petitioner presents or LUBA conceives a stronger interpretation. Because the city’s interpretation is not inconsistent with the text or purpose of the adjustment review process, the LUDO’s residential density regulations, or the RL zoning district, and because the city’s interpretation is contextually supported by the its comprehensive plan housing goal, Goal 10, and its policies and implementing measures, the assignment of error is denied and the city’s decision is AFFIRMED.