Narrative Opinion Summary
In a land use case concerning the precedence of text over map representations in a comprehensive plan, the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) affirmed that the plan's text is controlling. The case arose from Home Depot's proposal to construct a store requiring rezoning of a 17.5-acre site. Historically, the site had an LI base designation with an RSC overlay, later altered to an RT designation without updating the map to reflect base designation changes. Joan Rose, a petitioner, challenged the rezoning to GI with a PD overlay, arguing the site retained an RT base designation according to the 1998 map. The city asserted RT was an overlay, not a base designation, based on the plan's text, which LUBA found exceedingly ambiguous but ultimately reasonable. The petitioner failed to demonstrate that map coloration should take precedence over text, and no authority was cited for resolving such ambiguities. Consequently, LUBA affirmed the city's interpretation, supporting the plan's textual precedence and the rezoning decision.
Legal Issues Addressed
Interpretation of Plan Designationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the RT designation in the comprehensive plan was an overlay, not a base designation, based on the plan's text.
Reasoning: The city countered that the text of the comprehensive plan explicitly categorizes RT as an overlay and not a base designation.
Precedence of Comprehensive Plan Text over Mapsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Land Use Board of Appeals determined that the text of the comprehensive plan prevails over the visual representation on the map, and this interpretation was affirmed.
Reasoning: The Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) determined that the text takes precedence, a conclusion that was affirmed.
Resolution of Ambiguities in Land Use Textssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court favored the city's interpretation due to ambiguities in the comprehensive plan, determining that the plan's wording supported the city's view.
Reasoning: Since the plan's text does not support the notion of RT as a base designation and the petitioner failed to provide authority for her argument that map coloration takes precedence over the text, LUBA concluded the city's interpretation was reasonable.