Friends of Douglas County v. Douglas County

In determining whether the subject property is “agricultural land” under OAR 660-033-0020(1)(b), a county must address whether it is “adjacent to or intermingled with lands in capability classes I-IV/I-VI within a farm unit.”

Petitioners appeal a county decision determining that the subject property is non-resource land and approving a concurrent comprehensive plan designation and zoning map amendment. The 47-acre subject property contains several stands of oak savanna as well as wetlands and has been used for rotational grazing under a ten-year lease agreement. Intervenors applied for an amendment to the comprehensive plan map designation from Agricultural to Rural Residential-5 Acre with a corresponding zone change from Farm Grazing to Rural Residential-5 Acre. The board of county commissioners concluded that the subject property is not “agricultural land” as defined in OAR 660-033-0020(1) because the stands of oak savanna and wetlands on the property prevented the use of all but four acres for grazing. This appeal followed.

OAR 660-033-0020(1)(b) defines “agricultural land” as “[l]and in capability classes other than I-IV/I-VI that is adjacent to or intermingled with lands in capability classes I-IV/I-VI within a farm unit.” On the third subassignment of error, petitioners argue that the county’s findings were inadequate to explain why the subject property is not within a farm unit because they improperly focus only on the subject property and do not address the grazing that is occurring on the subject property as well as adjacent and nearby properties. LUBA agrees with petitioners that the county’s findings do not determine whether the subject property is part of a farm unit, noting that lands in diverse ownership that are jointly managed as a single operating farm unit may constitute a “farm unit” for purposes of the regulation. In determining whether the subject property is “agricultural land,” the county must address whether it is adjacent to or intermingled with lands in capability classes I-IV/I-VI within a farm unit. The county’s decision is therefore REMANDED.