Central Oregon LandWatch v. Jefferson County

Summary

The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed a Land Use Board of Appeals remand concerning Jefferson County’s approval of a comprehensive plan map amendment, zone change, and exceptions to Statewide Planning Goals 3 and 14. The court held that profitability alone could not establish that grazing was an impracticable farm use for an irrevocably committed Goal 3 exception and that the county’s findings did not adequately connect relevant factors to that conclusion. The court also declined to reach the county’s challenge concerning comprehensive-plan amendment because the argument was not preserved.

Holdings

1. The fact that grazing on the subject property might not independently yield a profit is insufficient, by itself, to establish that grazing is an impracticable farm use for an irrevocably committed Goal 3 exception. Profitability may be relevant to whether an agricultural use qualifies as farm use under ORS 215.203, but it has more limited significance in the exception analysis and does not alone resolve whether the exception is allowable.
2. LUBA did not misstate or misapply its substantial-evidence standard in concluding that the county had not identified substantial evidence or adequately explained why grazing was the only potential farm use that needed to be addressed.
3. LUBA correctly concluded that the county's findings did not adequately link parcel size, ownership patterns, regional and neighborhood characteristics, soil quality, lack of irrigation, and road-use evidence to the ultimate question whether farm use of the subject property was impracticable because of its relationship to surrounding uses.
4. The court did not reach the county's fourth assignment of error because the county failed to preserve the argument that amendment would be necessary or required if only one of the two exceptions was supported.

Questions Presented

1. Whether profitability alone could establish that grazing was an impracticable farm use for purposes of an irrevocably committed exception to Goal 3 under OAR 660-004-0028.
2. Whether LUBA misapplied its substantial-evidence standard in reviewing the county's findings concerning practicable agricultural uses and the factors relevant to an irrevocably committed exception.
3. Whether LUBA erred in concluding that the county's findings concerning parcel size, ownership patterns, regional and neighborhood characteristics, soil quality, lack of irrigation, and roads did not adequately support an irrevocably committed exception.
4. Whether the county preserved its challenge to LUBA's conclusion that the comprehensive-plan amendment was not yet shown to be necessary or required.

Disposition

affirmed