A Walk on the Wild Side v. Washington County

The fact that an owner of property, zoned exclusive farm use, uses the property for permitted farm uses does not shield concurrent unpermitted uses from code enforcement action.

Petitioner appeals a county hearings officer’s code enforcement decision. The subject property is zoned exclusive farm use (EFU) and identified as high-value farmland based on its soil. Petitioner is an Oregon nonprofit corporation that operates an exotic animal rescue facility on the subject property. After being advised by the county that keeping exotic animals is not a permitted use on the subject property, county code enforcement issued notices of civil violations to petitioner, as well as each of petitioner’s corporate officers and executive director, for violating the Washington County Community Development Code (CDC). A code enforcement hearing was scheduled, whereafter petitioner filed a motion to dismiss. The county hearings officer denied petitioner’s motion to dismiss and issued a final order imposing civil penalties for petitioner’s code violations. This appeal followed.

The hearings officer found that petitioner does use the property for certain “farm uses,” including raising, breeding, and selling a variety of livestock and poultry; selling livestock and poultry products; raising and selling fruit; and boarding and training horses. In its first assignment of error, petitioner argues that because the subject property is primarily used for “normal” farm use, petitioner may also use the subject property for keeping exotic animals. The county responds, and LUBA agrees, that the hearings officer correctly concluded that farm uses do not legitimize the concurrent unpermitted uses, and that land which is planned and zoned for exclusive farm use must be used exclusively for defined “farm uses” or exceptions, among which housing, feeding, and keeping exotic animals are not listed. The fact that petitioner also uses the property for permitted farm uses does not shield the unpermitted uses from code enforcement action. The first assignment of error is therefore denied and the county’s decision is AFFIRMED.