Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/03/1996

Home

Page.2 . August 15, 1996 Z.B. AgriCultural Use ~ Agricultural landowners oppose neighbor's bid to build[second home Gtttoski'v.' Lane County, 917 P2d 1048 (Oregon) 1996 Egge wanted to build a second home on his property in Lane County, Ore. At first, his land was in a residential zone, then the county rezoned it-agricul- tural to be consistent with statewide agricultural goals. Some areas that had unique characteristics were excepted from the state goals and could be zoned nonagricultural. Although Egge's land had no unique characteristics, the area in which it lay did. The entire area m including Egge's property m got zoned residential. Egge asked the county to rezone the property again, to reduce the mini- mum lot size needed for a home. That way, he could put up the second resi- dence. Egge's neighbors, the Gutoskis owned agriculturally zoned land that they used for agriculture. They said under the county's comprehensive plan, the county "had to protect agriculture "by minimizing activities, particularly resi- dential,~ which conflict with such use." Therefore, they said the conflict be- tween Egge's increased residential use and the Gutoskis' agricultural use should result in denial of Egge's application. The_ county's hearing officer approved Egge's re~luest, finding the policy the Gut°skis cited did not apply..The officer said the Policy applied to agricul- tural land, and Egge's land was residential. According to 'the officer, instead of an absolute preference for agricultural activities,i conflicts between resi- dential land in exception areas and neighboring agricultUral land should just be mitigated. The Gutoskis asked the Land Use Board of Appeals to review the deci- sion, and the board affirmed. The Gutoskis asked a court to review the board's decision. DECISION: Reversed and returned to the county. The hearing officer's interpretation of the comprehensive plan's policy was wrong. The case was sent back to the county for further proceedings. The policy cited by the Gutoskis was meant to protect agriculture against conflicts, particularly those caused by residential uses. The goal of protecting agriculture was not lost just because a neighbor's land was zoned differently. It especially wasn't lost because of Egge's land, which became nonagricultural because of unique conditions in the surrounding area that didn't exist on his land. The policy gave no indication that the zone in Which a conflicting use lay affected whether .to protect agricul- tural land. In fact, making such an issue significant would defeat the policy's purposes. Gage v. City of Portland, 891 P. 2d 1331 (1995). Clark v. Jackson County, 836 P. 2d 710 (1992).