Kine v. Deschutes County, 496 P.3d 1136

The 235‑acre Widgi Creek property was conveyed by BLM in 1984 as four parcels (A–D). A 1985 survey showed those internal parcel lines.
In 1990 the developer recorded a subdivision plat creating 107 residential lots; remaining areas (planned golf course) were labeled "Not in Plat." The plat’s exterior boundary overlaid the entire 235‑acre tract.
In 1994 the golf course area was conveyed as "Parcel 2," described by reference to the 1984 BLM metes‑and‑bounds but excepting portions within the recorded subdivision plat.
In 2016 petitioner (Kine) sought county verification that up to 11 unplatted remainder parcels (the preexisting BLM internal lines plus platted lots) were "lots of record." County staff treated the claim as 11 remainder parcels.
The county concluded the 1990 subdivision plat vacated the preexisting internal parcel lines (leaving one remainder "Not in Plat" lot of record) and alternatively interpreted its code to mean a remainder created by a plat is a single lot of record; LUBA affirmed.
Petitioner appealed, arguing the "Not in Plat" designation preserved preexisting lot lines and thus the plat could not operate on areas outside the plat; the court affirmed LUBA and the county.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Kine)	Defendant's Argument (County/LUBA)	Held
Whether the 1990 subdivision plat vacated preexisting internal parcel lines despite the "Not in Plat" label	The "Not in Plat" notation kept those BLM parcel lines outside the plat and therefore not vacated; preexisting lots remain discrete	The plat overlaid the entire tract; nothing on the plat clearly preserved internal lines, so replatting operated on whole tract and vacated prior lines	The court held the plat operated on the entire tract and, absent a clear preservation, vacated the preexisting lines; affirmed LUBA and county
Whether the county plausibly interpreted its code definition of "lot of record" to allow only a single remainder lot	Kine argued multiple remainder parcels survived and should be lots of record under county code	County alternatively interpreted code to treat a remainder created by a plat/partition as a single lot of record	Court did not reach merits because it affirmed on the replat/vacation ground; county/LUBA alternative interpretation was upheld as unnecessary to decide

Weyerhaeuser Real Estate Development Co. v. Polk County, 246 Or App 548 (2011) (replat/partition vacates prior lot lines absent map indication they should be preserved)
Mountain West Investment Corp. v. City of Silverton, 175 Or App 556 (2001) (standard for LUBA order being "unlawful in substance")
State ex rel Kine v. Deschutes County, 307 Or App 290 (2020) (prior mandamus proceeding related to the same verification application)