## Facts

- A property owner applied to the City of Ashland for a permit to build a residence on an irregular, L-shaped lot adjoining a neighbor’s parcel.
- The neighboring landowner opposed the permit, asserting the proposed placement would reduce solar access to her property under the city’s solar access regulations.
- The city’s ordinance defined “northern lot line” by reference to (1) lot lines meeting a specified angular criterion and (2) the line’s intersection with the lot’s northernmost point.
- City staff and the planning commission treated the line at or near the lot’s northernmost portion as the “northern lot line” for setback and solar-access calculations and approved the permit.
- On administrative appeal, the city council upheld the approval, concluding the definition was unambiguous and left no discretion to select a different line based on solar-impact concerns.
- The neighbor appealed to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), which remanded, reasoning the definition was ambiguous for an L-shaped parcel and must be construed in light of the solar access purpose statement.
- The city sought judicial review of LUBA’s remand order in the Oregon Court of Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether LUBA erred by finding the ordinance’s definition of “northern lot line” ambiguous and requiring a purpose-driven reinterpretation.
2. Whether, under ORS 197.835, LUBA must affirm a local government’s interpretation of its land use regulation when the interpretation is plausible and consistent with the regulation’s text, purpose, and policy.

## Decision

- The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed LUBA’s remand order and remanded to LUBA for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
- The court held the city’s interpretation of “northern lot line” was plausible and consistent with the definition’s express language.
- The court concluded LUBA impermissibly substituted its own interpretation for the city’s reasonable construction by elevating the general purpose statement over the ordinance’s specific definitional text.

## Legal Principles

- Under ORS 197.835, LUBA must affirm a local government’s interpretation of its land use regulations unless the interpretation is inconsistent with the regulations’ express language, purpose, or policy.
- LUBA’s role is to assess whether the local interpretation is plausible, not to select the interpretation LUBA considers preferable.
- Purpose provisions may inform interpretation, but they do not authorize disregarding or effectively rewriting specific definitional language when the local government’s text-based reading is reasonable.
- For a defined term tied to geometric criteria (including the lot’s “northernmost point”), applying the definition as written can be consistent with the regulation’s general solar-protection objective even if it does not maximize solar access in every parcel configuration.

## Conclusion

The court required deference to the city’s plausible, text-based construction of “northern lot line” and held LUBA exceeded its review authority by remanding for a purpose-driven reinterpretation where the city’s reading fit the ordinance’s express definition.


Sullivan v. City of Ashland, 130 Or. App. 480 (Or. Ct. App. 1994)