Scott v. Josephine County

Intervenor applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for an RV park on a 2.4-acre parcel zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU). The county approved the application. This appeal followed.

Under Josephine County Code (JCC) 19.64.040(T)(7), which implements OAR 660-033-0130(19)(b), “[s]eparate sewer, water or electric service hookups shall not be provided to individual camp sites except that electrical service may be provided to yurts.” Intervenor’s application proposed to provide separate water and electric service hookups to each RV space. Relying on Linn County Farm Bureau v. Linn County, the county concluded that the intent of OAR 660-033-0130(19)(b) was to prevent intensive uses of farmland and that, since the subject property was not suitable for farm use, the county could approve intervenor’s application. However, because OAR 660-033-0130(19)(b) applies to private campgrounds, whereas Linn County Farm Bureau merely concluded that that provision does not apply to public campgrounds, LUBA agreed with petitioner that the county misconstrued the applicable law.

Petitioner argued that, given its density and the electric and water hookups, intervenor’s proposed RV park was an urban use and that its allowance outside of an urban growth boundary was therefore inconsistent with Statewide Planning Goal 14 (Urbanization). In Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition v. Coos County, relying on 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Curry County), LUBA concluded that a 179-space “park trailer” RV park—in which the trailers would not be required to move once sited and which included a convenience store, a caretaker’s residence, a boat launch, fishing piers, a floating dock, a tackle/rental shop, and a recreation center on a 42.84-acre property 1 mile from a city—constituted an urban use. Because the OARs governing private campgrounds on EFU land do not allow intense recreational support facilities and limit the duration of site occupancy, and because the subject property was more than 3 miles from an urban growth boundary, LUBA agreed with intervenor that proposed RV park did not violate Goal 14. That the density would have been 10 RVs per acre was not dispositive, and the balance of the Curry County factors tended towards a rural characterization. Due to the above errors, the county’s decision was REMANDED.