Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/05/2010

Home

June 25, 2010 I Volume 41 No. 12 Zoning Bulletin that "is necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby agricultural lands." (OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a).) Goal 3 also provides that land in other soil classes that is adjacent to or intermin- gled with capability classes I-IV/I-VI "within a farm unit, shall be inven- toried as agricultural lands even though this land may not be cropped or grazed{.]"(OAR 660-033-0020(1)(b).) "Farm unit" is not defined. 'Some opposed Garden Valley's request (the "Opponents") because, if the county granted Garden Valley's request and determined that the 259-acre Parcel was not "agricultural land," it would open the door for subdivision of the Parcel into residential lots. The Opponents ar- gued that the Parcel "must be considered as part of a farm unit be- cause there [was] no physical impediment to its continued joint use" with the rest of the original 590-acre ranch. As part of a farm unit, the Opponents argued that the Parcel was "agricultural land" on which development was precluded under the state's land use preserva- tion Goal 3. Ultimately, the county determined that, because the 590-acre ranch could not be used profitably for grazing, it was not suitable for "farm use" and therefore, was not a "farm unit." Accordingly, the county de- termined that Garden Valley's 259-acre Parcel (which had, until 2005, been part of the 590-acre ranch) was not within a "farm unit" and therefore could not be inventoried as agricultural land under Goal 3. Ultimately, based on the county's determination, the county approved amendments to its comprehensive plan and zoning maps that would al- low the Parcel to be divided into five -acre residential lots. The Opponents appealed to the state Land Use Board of Appeals ("LUBA"). LUBA first determined that, contrary to Garden Valley's arguments, "profitability" of the Parcel was not to be considered un- der Goal 3. LUBA ultimately concluded that Garden Valley's 290-acre Parcel was within a "farm unit" for the purposes of Goal 3. LUBA re- versed the county's decision. Garden Valley appealed to court. The Court's Decision: Decision of LUBA affirmed. The Court of Appeals of Oregon concluded that Garden Valley's 259-acre Parcel was "within a farm unit" so as to be agricultural land, precluding development under the state's land use preservation Goal 3. In reaching that conclusion, the court held that "profitability [was] not a consideration in determining whether the 590-acre ranch in this case [was] a 'farm unit."' The determination of whether a parcel is a farm unit does not depend on the parcel's quality, but on "its location within and relationship to the contiguous whole." Furthermore, the court noted that, in cases like this where farm operations "have recently ceased on a parcel that historically has been used for farming operations with other lands as 10 © 2010 Thomson Reuters 182