Landwatch Lane County v. Lane County

Only when a property’s soil type does not meet the definition of “agricultural land” is the local government to look to other factors in determining whether to classify land as “agricultural land.”

Petitioner challenges a decision by Lane County in its approval of intervenor’s request for an amendment to the comprehensive plan map designation from forest land to non-resource land, and a corresponding zoning map amendment from Impacted Forest land to Rural Residential. The property in question encompasses two parcels of land. One parcel is a 20-acre parcel designated tax lot 102, and the other is a 13-acre parcel.

            In the assignment of error, petitioner claims that the county failed to demonstrate that the applicant could not put the subject property to profitable farm use by growing and processing marijuana. Petitioner argues that the County did not address testimony that stated marijuana cultivation utilizes cloth pots or buckets, and therefore the suitability or agricultural class of the soils is not relevant. Thus, the county failed to demonstrate that, “technology or energy cannot allow for production of viable crops.” Intervenor claims that OAR 660-033-0020 focuses on the land and its suitability for farm use, and not on whether a particular crop can be grown on the property. Moreover, intervenor states that there is nothing that remotely suggests that Oregon law requires property owners to commit federal crimes and risk forfeiture of their property to the federal government. LUBA agrees with petitioner, stating that the purpose of  Statewide Planning Goal 3 is to “preserve and maintain agricultural lands.” Goal 3’s definition of “Agricultural lands” is defined by soil type. Therefore, only when the property’s soil type does not qualify as agricultural land, is the local government to look at other facts in determining when other lands are suitable for farm use. In conclusion, because the county did not have to consider issues such as crops in its determination, its failure to consider the testimony was not in error. AFFIRMED.