Laserfiche WebLink
"additional applicable criteria" is unambiguously broad enough to <br /> encompass a requirement that a project must meet for approval. <br /> The defendants argue, however, that we ought to defer to the <br /> Board's contrary interpretation of the Land Use Code. But the <br /> Board is only entitled to deference where, unlike here, the language <br /> of a provision is ambiguous. See Shupe, 230 P.3d at 1272. <br /> Moreover, even then, the Board's interpretation must have a <br /> reasonable basis in the law to warrant deference. See id. And we <br /> discern no such basis here; the Board's interpretation that sections <br /> 4.3.10 and 4.3.7(E) did not include any criteria relevant to its <br /> approval of the project cannot be reconciled with its concession that <br /> the provisions establish an applicable requirement that the <br /> proposed batch plant had to satisfy. <br /> * 7,SIn sum, then, the Board misapplied and misinterpreted <br /> section 4.5.3(F) by concluding that section 4.3 contained no <br /> "additional applicable criteria" that it needed to consider in <br /> approving the project. Thus, it abused its discretion. See Berger, <br /> 195 P.3d at 1139. <br /> 7 t> But this conclusion here does not end our inquiry. We still <br /> must consider whether the Board's abuse of discretion warrants <br /> 37 <br />