1000 Friends of Oregon v. Columbia County

When a term for a transportation use that does not require an exception to a Statewide Planning Goal is undefined in the statute, LUBA will look to the plain meaning of the words and available state agency definitions to determine whether the proposed uses are consistent with that definition or exceed it and require an exception.

Petitioner appealed the County’s approval for construction of a rail facility over land zoned Primarily Agricultural (PA) as part of a proposed renewable diesel production facility. The proposed rail facility had multiple tracks to allow for, among other things, storage of train cars and tuning engines around. The County found the proposed facility was a “branchline” railroad, which was a use “consistent with” Statewide Planning Goal 3 under OAR 660-012-0065 and did not require an exception. On appeal to LUBA, Petitioner made three assignments of error, only the first of which LUBA reached: that the proposed rail facility was not a “branchline” railway, and the County misconstrued the term “branchline” and improperly applied it to the proposed rail facility. In response, the County argued that “branchline” was undefined in the applicable statutes, that its interpretation was consistent with both industry usage and the Oregon Supreme Court’s “commonly understood” definition of “branchline” as a line independent of the “mainline” that had “a business of its own,” and that the parties had failed to cite any authority to the contrary.

Under ORS 215.283(3), “a local government may approve transportation facilities and improvements on land in agricultural zones, subject to either adoption of an exception to Goal 3” or a use determined to be consistent with Goal 3. Under OAR 660-012-0065(3)(j), “[r]ailroad mainlines and branchlines” are consistent with Goal 3.

LUBA sustained Petitioner’s first assignment of error on textual grounds. LUBA noted, as the County did, that while “branchline” is referenced numerous times in Oregon’s statutes, regulations, and legislative history, it is never defined. LUBA first looked to the dictionary definitions of “branch” and “line” and reasoned that, together, their plain meaning was “a line of railroad—a section of the track and roadbed of a railway that is distinct, elongated, narrow, and rather uniform in width that is used for trains to travel a certain route.” LUBA found the County’s interpretation inconsistent with this meaning, pointing out the Court’s definition focused on lines for transportation between points and basic loading and unloading, not the multiple tracks, interchanges, and storage proposed here. LUBA concluded the County’s interpretation was not supported by the plain meaning of the text.

Further, LUBA considered the 2001 Oregon Rail Plan definitions which informed the Oregon Department of Transportation’s proposals for uses consistent with Goal 3. LUBA reasoned the complexity of the proposed rail facility was potentially consistent with multiple other definitions and uses other than a “branchline.” LUBA concluded the proposed rail facility was not a “branchline” that was consistent with Goal 3 under OAR 660-012-065, and the County’s approval of the facility was prohibited by law. As the action was prohibited and the changes necessary to bring the planned facility into compliance with the branchline use or to apply for a goal exception were not insignificant, LUBA concluded reversal rather than remand was the proper disposition.

Reversed.