- Court: Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Land Use
- Date Filed: 12-20-2023
- Case #: 2023-057
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Ryan, Board Chair
- Full Text Opinion
The intervenor owns a 320-acre EFU-zoned farm along the Yamhill and Willamette Rivers, with facilities including a dwelling, barns, and land used for wine grapes (4.5 acres), grass seed (165 acres), pasture for longhorn cattle (90 acres), and former hazelnut orchards now in grass production (90 acres). In February 2023, the intervenor applied to host up to 18 events per year featuring farm products such as longhorn beef and wine grapes, and to market their herd. The planning director approved the application, and petitioner appealed. The board of commissioners upheld the approval with findings. The petitioner appealed.
Oregon land use law limits EFU-zoned land to farming and compatible non-farm uses. Under ORS 215.283(4), certain agritourism and commercial events related to agriculture are allowed: up to 6 small events per year under strict limits, or up to 18 larger events if they meet additional criteria. These events must be incidental and subordinate to farming, support agricultural enterprises, comply with local standards, occur on qualifying parcels, and not exceed 18 events annually.
First Assignment of Error:
Petitioner argued that the county misinterpreted ORS 215.283(4) by not requiring proof that the proposed events were “related to and supportive of agriculture,” and also failed to make findings supported by substantial evidence. LUBA agreed that the county initially erred in concluding no such showing was required, since the statute clearly requires it. However, the board of commissioners alternatively found that the proposed events were connected to agriculture because they promoted and marketed the farm’s longhorn cattle and beef. Evidence showed that customers learned about and purchased beef through these events, and a condition of approval required promotional materials at each event. LUBA held this was sufficient to meet the statutory requirement. The first assignment of error was denied.
Second Assignment of Error:
Petitioner argued that the county misinterpreted ORS 215.283(4)(d)(A) by finding the proposed events “necessary to support the commercial farm uses.” LUBA had previously held this requires proof that the events are “essential to maintaining the existence of the commercial farm or agricultural enterprises in the area.” The board of commissioners found the events essential to sustaining the longhorn cattle operation, relying on evidence that marketing longhorn beef through normal auctions causes financial loss, while direct sales tied to events are more profitable. However, LUBA agreed with petitioner that the county improperly focused only on the cattle operation while ignoring other significant farm uses on the 320-acre farm. Moreover, there was no substantial evidence showing the events were essential to maintaining either the farm as a whole or the longhorn breeding operation specifically. The second assignment of error was sustained.
Third Assignment of Error:
ORS 215.283(4)(d)(B) requires compliance with ORS 215.283(4)(c)(E), which prohibits agritourism events from materially altering the stability of the land use pattern in the area when combined with other authorized commercial events. Petitioner argued the county erred in treating the ordinance as a purely local standard, and LUBA agreed. LUBA also agreed that the county’s findings were inadequate and unsupported. Specifically, the county failed to properly (1) define the “area,” (2) identify all other authorized agritourism or commercial activities, and (3) analyze the cumulative impact on land use stability. Instead, the board only referenced farm uses and a single commercial activity, relied on neighbor support, and concluded no farmers objected, which are all insufficient under the statute. The third assignment of error was sustained.
Decision remanded.