Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.829 (2026)

Board to affirm certain local government interpretations

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      197.829 Board to affirm certain local government interpretations. (1) The Land Use Board of Appeals shall affirm a local government’s interpretation of its comprehensive plan and land use regulations, unless the board determines that the local government’s interpretation:

      (a) Is inconsistent with the express language of the comprehensive plan or land use regulation;

      (b) Is inconsistent with the purpose for the comprehensive plan or land use regulation;

      (c) Is inconsistent with the underlying policy that provides the basis for the comprehensive plan or land use regulation; or

      (d) Is contrary to a state statute, land use goal or rule that the comprehensive plan provision or land use regulation implements.

      (2) If a local government fails to interpret a provision of its comprehensive plan or land use regulations, or if such interpretation is inadequate for review, the board may make its own determination of whether the local government decision is correct. [1993 c.792 §43; 1995 c.595 §4]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 118 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case: Siporen v. City of Medford, 243 P.3d 776 (Or. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Siporen v. City of Medford, 243 P.3d 776 (Or. 2010). · cites it 26× “In addition, those two levels of interpretation may intersect, as in the present case, when the parties’ competing interpretations of a single term (“applicable”) are informed by their interpretation of supposedly conflicting provisions elsewhere in the regulations.”
W. Land & Cattle, Inc. v. Umatilla Cnty., 214 P.3d 68 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 27× “We reject without further discussion petitioner’s second claim and affirm the board’s deference to the county’s interpretation of its ordinances under ORS 197.829. We begin with the standard of review under that statute.”
Friends of Neabeack Hill v. City of Philomath, 911 P.2d 350 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 28× “” Relatedly, LUBA rejected petitioners’ contention that the city’s action was inconsistent with the area’s 2A designation, and explained that petitioner’s argument “is, in effect, a challenge to the city’s decision to zone the site for residential development, rather than open…”
Gould v. Deschutes Cnty., 362 P.3d 679 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 12× “Accordingly, in Gould VII, LUBA determined that the hearings officer had incorrectly interpreted the substantially exercised prong of DCC 22.36.020(A)(3), and remanded to the county.”
Kaplowitz v. Lane Cnty., 398 P.3d 478 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 13× “” Petitioner did not argue that the county’s interpretation of the provision was not subject to deference under ORS 197.829, nor did petitioner advance an argument that the factors the county identified as relevant to determining whether a use was “accessory” were inconsistent…”
Siporen v. City of Medford, 220 P.3d 427 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 13× “On judicial review, the legal issue is whether LUBA, pursuant to ORS 197.829, was required to affirm the city’s interpretation that its code does not require a more comprehensive traffic impact analysis under these circumstances.”
VanSpeybroeck v. Tillamook Cnty., 191 P.3d 712 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 6× “ORS 197.829 requires LUBA to affirm a *689 local government’s interpretation of its land use regulations unless LUBA determines that the interpretation is inconsistent with the express language, purpose, or underlying policy of the regulation, or is inconsistent with the state…”
Mark Latham Excavation, Inc. v. Deschutes Cnty., 281 P.3d 644 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 7× “” ORS 197.850(9)(a). In addressing whether LUBA applied the proper level of deference to the county’s interpretation of its land use ordinance, we first determine LUBA’s standard of review.”
Columbia Riverkeeper v. Clatsop Cnty., 243 P.3d 82 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 12× “Intervenors seek review of LUBA’s opinion and order in Bradwood II, contending that LUBA erred in its construction of the plan policies and in failing to defer to the county’s interpretation of those policies under ORS 197.829. We review whether the LUBA order is “unlawful in…”
Green v. Douglas Cnty., 263 P.3d 355 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 11× “While the planning commission’s interpretation is not entitled to any deference under ORS 197.829(1), we cannot say that interpretation is erroneous.”
Foland v. Jackson Cnty., 168 P.3d 1238 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 5× “) *163 The Provosts now seek judicial review of LUBA’s final order and opinion, arguing that it failed to give adequate deference to the county’s interpretation of its own development ordinances as required by ORS 197.829, which provides, in part: “(1) The Land Use Board of…”
Opus Dev. Corp. v. City of Eugene, 918 P.2d 116 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 12× “In addition to other points, respondents contended to LUBA that the interpretation was reversible under ORS 197.”
Show all 118 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.829(1) — 63 cases
Siporen v. City of Medford, 243 P.3d 776 (Or. 2010). “In addition, those two levels of interpretation may intersect, as in the present case, when the parties’ competing interpretations of a single term (“applicable”) are informed by their interpretation of supposedly conflicting provisions elsewhere in the regulations.”
W. Land & Cattle, Inc. v. Umatilla Cnty., 214 P.3d 68 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “We reject without further discussion petitioner’s second claim and affirm the board’s deference to the county’s interpretation of its ordinances under ORS 197.829. We begin with the standard of review under that statute.”
Gould v. Deschutes Cnty., 362 P.3d 679 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). “Accordingly, in Gould VII, LUBA determined that the hearings officer had incorrectly interpreted the substantially exercised prong of DCC 22.36.020(A)(3), and remanded to the county.”
Kaplowitz v. Lane Cnty., 398 P.3d 478 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “” Petitioner did not argue that the county’s interpretation of the provision was not subject to deference under ORS 197.829, nor did petitioner advance an argument that the factors the county identified as relevant to determining whether a use was “accessory” were inconsistent…”
Green v. Douglas Cnty., 263 P.3d 355 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “While the planning commission’s interpretation is not entitled to any deference under ORS 197.829(1), we cannot say that interpretation is erroneous.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.829(1)(a) — 16 cases
Siporen v. City of Medford, 243 P.3d 776 (Or. 2010). “In addition, those two levels of interpretation may intersect, as in the present case, when the parties’ competing interpretations of a single term (“applicable”) are informed by their interpretation of supposedly conflicting provisions elsewhere in the regulations.”
Siporen v. City of Medford, 220 P.3d 427 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “On judicial review, the legal issue is whether LUBA, pursuant to ORS 197.829, was required to affirm the city’s interpretation that its code does not require a more comprehensive traffic impact analysis under these circumstances.”
Columbia Riverkeeper v. Clatsop Cnty., 243 P.3d 82 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “Intervenors seek review of LUBA’s opinion and order in Bradwood II, contending that LUBA erred in its construction of the plan policies and in failing to defer to the county’s interpretation of those policies under ORS 197.829. We review whether the LUBA order is “unlawful in…”
Friends of Neabeack Hill v. City of Philomath, 911 P.2d 350 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). “” Relatedly, LUBA rejected petitioners’ contention that the city’s action was inconsistent with the area’s 2A designation, and explained that petitioner’s argument “is, in effect, a challenge to the city’s decision to zone the site for residential development, rather than open…”
Mark Latham Excavation, Inc. v. Deschutes Cnty., 281 P.3d 644 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “” ORS 197.850(9)(a). In addressing whether LUBA applied the proper level of deference to the county’s interpretation of its land use ordinance, we first determine LUBA’s standard of review.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.829(1)(c) — 2 cases
West Linn Corp. Park, L.L.C. v. City of West Linn, 240 P.3d 29 (Or. 2010).
Delta Prop. Co. v. Lane Cnty., 352 P.3d 86 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.829(1)(d) — 8 cases
Friends of Neabeack Hill v. City of Philomath, 911 P.2d 350 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). “” Relatedly, LUBA rejected petitioners’ contention that the city’s action was inconsistent with the area’s 2A designation, and explained that petitioner’s argument “is, in effect, a challenge to the city’s decision to zone the site for residential development, rather than open…”
Jackson Cnty. Citizens' League v. Jackson Cnty., 15 P.3d 42 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
Marquam Farms Corp. v. Multnomah Cnty., 936 P.2d 990 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
Save Oregon's Cape Kiwanda Org. v. Tillamook Cnty., 34 P.3d 745 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
Dept. of Land Conservation v. Clackamas Cnty. (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.829(2) — 13 cases
Opp v. City of Portland, 955 P.2d 768 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
Gould v. Deschutes Cnty., 362 P.3d 679 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). “Accordingly, in Gould VII, LUBA determined that the hearings officer had incorrectly interpreted the substantially exercised prong of DCC 22.36.020(A)(3), and remanded to the county.”
Canfield v. Yamhill Cnty., 920 P.2d 558 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
Green v. Douglas Cnty., 263 P.3d 355 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “While the planning commission’s interpretation is not entitled to any deference under ORS 197.829(1), we cannot say that interpretation is erroneous.”
All. for Responsible Land Use v. Deschutes Cnty., 942 P.2d 836 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.829(4) — 7 cases
Friends of Neabeack Hill v. City of Philomath, 911 P.2d 350 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). “” Relatedly, LUBA rejected petitioners’ contention that the city’s action was inconsistent with the area’s 2A designation, and explained that petitioner’s argument “is, in effect, a challenge to the city’s decision to zone the site for residential development, rather than open…”
Shelter Resources, Inc. v. City of Cannon Beach, 879 P.2d 1313 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
McKenzie v. Multnomah Cnty., 884 P.2d 868 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
Bicycle Transp. All. v. Washington Cnty., 873 P.2d 452 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
Dep't of Land Conservation & Dev. v. Fargo Interchange Serv. Dist., 879 P.2d 224 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.829(l) — 2 cases
McKenzie v. Multnomah Cnty., 884 P.2d 868 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
Melton v. City of Cottage Grove, 887 P.2d 359 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.829(l)(a) — 19 cases
Siporen v. City of Medford, 243 P.3d 776 (Or. 2010). “In addition, those two levels of interpretation may intersect, as in the present case, when the parties’ competing interpretations of a single term (“applicable”) are informed by their interpretation of supposedly conflicting provisions elsewhere in the regulations.”
W. Land & Cattle, Inc. v. Umatilla Cnty., 214 P.3d 68 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “We reject without further discussion petitioner’s second claim and affirm the board’s deference to the county’s interpretation of its ordinances under ORS 197.829. We begin with the standard of review under that statute.”
Siporen v. City of Medford, 220 P.3d 427 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “On judicial review, the legal issue is whether LUBA, pursuant to ORS 197.829, was required to affirm the city’s interpretation that its code does not require a more comprehensive traffic impact analysis under these circumstances.”
Foland v. Jackson Cnty., 168 P.3d 1238 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). “) *163 The Provosts now seek judicial review of LUBA’s final order and opinion, arguing that it failed to give adequate deference to the county’s interpretation of its own development ordinances as required by ORS 197.829, which provides, in part: “(1) The Land Use Board of…”
Mark Latham Excavation, Inc. v. Deschutes Cnty., 281 P.3d 644 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “” ORS 197.850(9)(a). In addressing whether LUBA applied the proper level of deference to the county’s interpretation of its land use ordinance, we first determine LUBA’s standard of review.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.829(l)(b) — 2 cases
W. Land & Cattle, Inc. v. Umatilla Cnty., 214 P.3d 68 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “We reject without further discussion petitioner’s second claim and affirm the board’s deference to the county’s interpretation of its ordinances under ORS 197.829. We begin with the standard of review under that statute.”
Mark Latham Excavation, Inc. v. Deschutes Cnty., 281 P.3d 644 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “” ORS 197.850(9)(a). In addressing whether LUBA applied the proper level of deference to the county’s interpretation of its land use ordinance, we first determine LUBA’s standard of review.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.829(l)(c) — 2 cases
West Linn Corp. Park, L.L.C. v. City of West Linn, 240 P.3d 29 (Or. 2010).
Opus Dev. Corp. v. City of Eugene, 918 P.2d 116 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). “In addition to other points, respondents contended to LUBA that the interpretation was reversible under ORS 197.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.829(l)(d) — 9 cases
Opus Dev. Corp. v. City of Eugene, 918 P.2d 116 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). “In addition to other points, respondents contended to LUBA that the interpretation was reversible under ORS 197.”
Siporen v. City of Medford, 243 P.3d 776 (Or. 2010). “In addition, those two levels of interpretation may intersect, as in the present case, when the parties’ competing interpretations of a single term (“applicable”) are informed by their interpretation of supposedly conflicting provisions elsewhere in the regulations.”
Jackson Cnty. Citizens' League v. Jackson Cnty., 15 P.3d 42 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
Friends of Neabeack Hill v. City of Philomath, 911 P.2d 350 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). “” Relatedly, LUBA rejected petitioners’ contention that the city’s action was inconsistent with the area’s 2A designation, and explained that petitioner’s argument “is, in effect, a challenge to the city’s decision to zone the site for residential development, rather than open…”
Church v. Grant Cnty., 69 P.3d 759 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.