Sullivan v. City of Ashland

Maralee Sullivan (plaintiff) owned land in the City of Ashland, Oregon (the city) (defendant). Donald Johnson was Sullivan’s neighbor. Johnson’s property had an L-shaped eastern border, and Sullivan’s property sat in the corner of the L shape, which meant that the western and southern sides of Sullivan’s property entirely touched Johnson’s property. However, Johnson’s property was larger and extended north of Sullivan’s property. In 1993, Johnson received permission from the city to build a home on land south of Sullivan’s property (i.e., partially below the bottom of the L). Sullivan appealed the permitting decision to the city council, arguing that Johnson’s proposed home did not comply with the setback requirements in the solar-access chapter of the city’s land-use ordinance. The solar-access chapter provided in part that structures needed to be set back relative to the “northern lot line” of the property. The ordinance defined “northern lot line” as any lot line that intersected the northernmost point of the lot at an angle of 45 degrees or less. Sullivan asserted that the city had improperly treated the northernmost property line of Johnson’s property as the northern lot line; she claimed that the city should have treated the bottom of the L as the relevant northern lot line for the placement of Johnson’s proposed home. Sullivan asserted that the city’s approach had deprived Sullivan of southern solar access on her property, which contradicted the solar-access chapter’s purpose of protecting access to a reasonable amount of sunlight. The city council rejected Sullivan’s argument, finding that the city’s planning-commission staff had appropriately used the lot line at the northernmost part of the lot. The city council asserted that the ordinance was unambiguous and allowed no discretion to determine a northern lot line that did not comply with the ordinance’s explicit requirements. Sullivan appealed the city council’s determination to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). The LUBA remanded the matter to the city council after determining that the ordinance was ambiguous and could be interpreted so that the bottom of the L would be the appropriate northern lot line. The LUBA held that the city was required to interpret the ordinance in light of the solar-access chapter’s purpose of protecting properties’ southern access to sunlight and said that the city either must explain why the bottom of the L was not an appropriate northern lot line or recalculate the northern lot line to include the bottom of the L. The city sought judicial review of the LUBA’s determination.