I <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />I1 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />The hearings officer concluded that West Creek's proposal satisfied EC 9.8325(3). 14 <br />Southeast Neighbors appealed that issue to the planning commission, and the <br />planning commission concluded that the fence is not allowed within the landscaped buffer <br />area under EC 9.8325(3). The planning commission imposed a condition of approval that <br />"fencing is not allowed on the perimeter of the PUD or within the required 30' landscape <br />buffer under the provisions of EC 9.8325(3) and EC 9.6210(7)." Record 34. <br />In its fifth cross assignment of error, West Creep argues that the planning commission <br />erred in prohibiting the fence and that the plain language of EC 9.8325(3) does not support <br />the planning commission's interpretation. We review the planning commission's <br />interpretation of the relevant EC provisions to determine whether it is correct. Gage, 133 Or <br />App 346, 349-50. We disagree with West Creek that the planning commission <br />misinterpreted the plain language of EC 9.8325(3) when it prohibited a fence on the <br />perimeter of the PUD or within the landscape buffer area. The planning commission's <br />interpretation of EC 9.8325(3) is more consistent with the presumed purpose of the buffer <br />requirement to provide a landscape buffer for the surrounding properties from the visual <br />impacts of the PUD. If the landscaping is located behind a fence, then the fence, not the <br />17 landscaping, is providing the buffer. Accordingly, the planning commission properly <br />18 <br />19 <br />construed EC 9.8325(3) in prohibiting West Creek's proposed perimeter fence. <br />West Creek's, fifth cross assignment of error is denied. <br />1`t The hearings officer found that the text of EC 9.8325(3) supports West Creek's proposal to place a fence <br />on the perimeter of the property: <br />"The hearings [officer] believes that the text of this criterion does not require [Southeast <br />Neighbors'] proposed interpretation. This provision specifies a landscaped area between the <br />proposed PUD and surrounding properties, and along, but not 'on' the perimeter. Here, where <br />the applicant is proposing a 30-foot landscaped buffer up to the fence and the fence is on the <br />perimeter, the landscaped buffer is `between the proposed development and surrounding <br />properties' and is `along the perimeter.' Further, EC 9.6210(7)(x) lists `Required Materials' <br />for the landscaped area, but does not purport to exclude all other materials. For example, EC <br />9.6210(7)(a) does not use the phrase 'Allowable Materials,' which would suggest a list of only <br />those materials allowed." Record 464. <br />Page 26 <br />