Juniper Institue, LLC v. Deschutes County
341 Or. App. 674
Or. Ct. App.2025Background
- Juniper Institute, LLC sought a conditional use permit (CUP) from Deschutes County to operate a psilocybin services center within Juniper Preserve, a destination resort only accessible via a right-of-way (ROW) across Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land.
- The County denied the CUP, reasoning the access was inadequate because transporting psilocybin across federally-managed land is illegal under federal law, and the BLM ROW does not expressly permit such transport.
- Juniper appealed to LUBA, which reversed the County, finding that the County's interpretation of its land use code was implausible and exceeded its authority under the Oregon Psilocybin Services Act.
- LUBA directed the County to approve the permit, finding the County’s actions were not supported by substantial evidence and misapplied both state law and the county's own code.
- The County sought review in the Oregon Court of Appeals, raising six assignments of error (though only three were substantively reviewed due to preservation and mootness issues).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Construction of DCC 18.128.015(A)(2) (transportation access) | County's interpretation was implausible and overbroad | County's interpretation of legal access is plausible under text | County's interpretation was plausible; LUBA erred |
| Authority under Oregon Psilocybin Services Act | County exceeded authority by relying on federal law | County did not rely on federal law, but just failed proof by Juniper | County did not exceed authority; LUBA erred |
| Burden of Proof/Application of Standard of Review | County's findings not supported, shifting burden improperly | LUBA misapplied standard; Juniper failed to meet burden | LUBA relieved Juniper of its burden; LUBA erred |
Key Cases Cited
- Siporen v. City of Medford, 349 Or 247 (deference owed to local authority's plausible interpretation of its own land use regulations)
- State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160 (principles of statutory and ordinance interpretation)
- Gould v. Deschutes County, 272 Or App 666 (deference to plausible local interpretations even if others are stronger)
- Carroll v. Lane County, 340 Or App 514 (whether an instrument is ambiguous is a legal question).