Richards v. Jefferson County

Under OAR 660-033-0130(9), while counties have some discretion to determine the thresholds of a “commercial farming operation” for purposes of approving relative farm help dwellings, this requires sufficient scale and intensity to induce and require a reasonable farmer to devote the majority of his or her working hours to operating the farm.

Petitioners appeal a county decision approving a relative farm help dwelling. Intervenors filed an application for a relative farm help dwelling to allow their son to live on the subject property and assist with farm operations, which the county initially approved. On appeal, LUBA remanded the decision for additional evidence and findings regarding various approval standards. The county accepted additional evidence from intervenors, adopted additional findings, and reapproved the application. This appeal followed.

While OAR 660-033-0130(9) and Jefferson County Zoning Ordinance (JCZO) 301.6(F) authorize a relative farm help dwelling for an existing “commercial farming operation,” neither the rule nor the code define that term. On remand, the county found that intervenors’ operation is “commercial” because it has farm deferral tax status, exceeds the EFU minimum lot size, is used to run cattle and grow crops, receives irrigation on site, requires the use of farm equipment, earns a farm income, and has been cropped continuously for years. LUBA agrees with petitioners that these facts, while sufficient to establish the existence of a farm operation, are insufficient to establish that it is “commercial” in scale or intensity. While counties have some discretion to determine the thresholds of a “commercial farming operation,” LUBA believes this requires sufficient scale and intensity to induce and require a reasonable farmer to devote the majority of his or her working hours to operating the farm. Because the county’s findings are inadequate to determine whether intervenors’ farming operation is “commercial,” these assignments of error are sustained.

OAR 660-033-0130(9) and JCZO 301.6(F) also require that the farm operator continue to play a “predominant role” in the farm’s management and use. In various other assignments of error, petitioners argue that the county’s findings are inadequate because they fail to quantify or substantiate the conclusion that intervenor will play a “predominant role” relative to his son. While a quantification and comparison of hours worked is less important in cases where the farm operator’s physical limitations prevent them from performing some of the required physical work—as opposed to where the scale or intensity of the operation requires more work than a single farmer can reasonably perform—LUBA agrees with petitioners that some comparison of the farm operator and relative’s respective roles must be in the record to support such a finding. These assignments of error are therefore sustained in part and the county’s decision is REMANDED.