Central Oregon LandWatch v. Crook County

“A local government may still find land unsuitable for farm uses due to its size or location, but size or location may not be the sole basis for that finding if the land ‘can reasonably be put to farm or forest use in conjunction with other land.’” ORS 215.284(2)(b).

LandWatch sought review of a final order of the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) granting conditional use approval for a nonfarm dwelling in an exclusive farm use (EFU) zone. LandWatch asserted that LUBA, by affirming the county’s approval of the non-farm dwelling, under ORS 215.284(2)(b), “misconstrued and misapplied applicable law in finding the subject property cannot be used [for farm use] in conjunction with other land.” LandWatch argued that a parcel of land could not be considered unsuitable for farm use solely because of size if it can be put to farm use in conjunction with other land. In response, the Garcias argued that LUBA’s understanding of the statute is correct and consistent with the statute’s plain text. “A local government may still find land unsuitable for farm uses due to its size or location, but size or location may not be the sole basis for that finding if the land ‘can reasonably be put to farm or forest use in conjunction with other land.’” ORS 215.284(2)(b). The Court found that the statute does not explicitly direct local governments to consider whether land can reasonably be used in conjunction with other land; it does so indirectly by prohibiting a finding that land is unsuitable for farm use solely due to size or location if conjoined use is possible. Thus, the Court held that LUBA had correctly interpreted ORS 215.284(2)(b) and LUBA’s final order was not “unlawful in substance.” Affirmed.