- Court: Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Land Use
- Date Filed: 07-19-2024
- Case #: 2024-015
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Opinion by Zamudio
- Full Text Opinion
The 20-acre property contains a single-family dwelling and a 3,000-square-foot barn, authorized in 2020 as an agricultural structure. The site has previously grown Christmas trees, and the owner plans to continue that use along with a flower farm. The owner applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) to operate a home occupation event business hosting weddings and similar events, proposing to use the barn, construct a 1,400-square-foot dressing building, create an outdoor gathering area and ceremony space, add storage, food truck parking, a 70-space lot, and landscaping. The proposal included up to 36 events per year, averaging 100 guests and capped at 150.
County staff recommended denial, finding the barn could not be used for events. The owner appealed, and the hearings officer approved the CUP with conditions, allowing use of the barn, dressing building, and temporary tents, but limiting events to 52 per year with a maximum of 100 attendees.
First Assignment of Error
Petitioners contend the hearings officer misapplied ORS 215.760 by allowing the barn, originally approved as an agricultural building, to be converted into an event facility if an after-the-fact building permit were obtained. ORS 215.760(2) prohibits converting an agricultural building to another use, and ORS 455.315 defines “agricultural building” as one used for specific farm or forestry purposes, excluding public or assembly uses.
The hearings officer found the statute ambiguous and reasoned that prohibiting conversion solely because the barn was built without a permit would be an “absurd result.” He concluded that once an after-the-fact permit is issued, the barn would no longer qualify as an “agricultural building” under ORS 215.760, and therefore could be lawfully used as an event facility.
Petitioners argued this was an incorrect interpretation. The reviewing body agreed with petitioners, holding that ORS 215.760 must be construed based on statutory text, context, and legislative intent, and that the hearings officer erred in his interpretation.
The reviewing body found ORS 215.760(2) unambiguous. An “agricultural building” is defined in ORS 455.315, and “authorized” means sanctioned under ORS 215.760(1). Therefore, such buildings may not be converted to another use. The hearings officer’s interpretation that obtaining a later building permit removes the building from ORS 215.760’s restrictions improperly inserted an exception not found in the statute. The statute cannot be read to allow conversion of an agricultural building simply by later securing a permit for a different use.
Legislative history confirms that ORS 215.760 was enacted to give parity to forest landowners by allowing agricultural-type buildings, in forest and mixed farm/forest zones without requiring land use or building permit approval. Testimony on HB 2441 emphasized that these structures were intended only for resource-related uses, not habitation or other nonresource purposes. To prevent misuse, ORS 215.760(2), expressly prohibits conversion of such buildings to other uses. Thus, ORS 215.760(2) prohibits converting agricultural buildings to nonresource uses, and the hearings officer’s interpretation is inconsistent with both the statutory text and legislative intent.
The reviewing body held that ORS 215.760 prevails over ORS 215.448. The text and legislative history of ORS 215.760 shows no intent to allow exceptions for home occupation uses, but instead a clear prohibition on conversion to any non-resource use. The first assignment of error was sustained.
Second Assignment of Error
The dispute centers on whether a proposed “dressing building” for a wedding/event venue in an AG/F zone qualifies as a structure “normally associated with uses permitted in the zone,” as required by ORS 215.448 and ZDO 806.
The hearings officer found it did, relying on applicant materials and staff reports describing the building’s dual-purpose use (supporting farm operations on non-event days, providing changing rooms and storage on event days). However, the record lacked substantial evidence showing that such a building with bathrooms, showers, kitchens, and septic for 150 people is in fact typical of agricultural buildings in the zone.
Unlike cases where staff provided detailed comparisons of similar structures, the county here only offered conclusory statements and applicant testimony. References to other event venues were also too vague. Because the evidence did not establish that the building is “normally associated” with permitted uses in the AG/F zone, the second assignment of error was sustained.
Third Assignment of Error
Petitioners argued that the hearings officer erred in finding the site suitable for the proposed use under ZDO 1203.03(B) by failing to consider natural features, specifically a stream shown on federal wetland maps. The officer found no mapped protected natural features, without addressing petitioners’ contrary evidence.
Although that omission was an error, it was deemed harmless because the stream is located far from the proposed event area and access, and there is no evidence of impact in either direction. Thus, the stream does not affect the site’s suitability for the proposed use. The third assignment of error was denied.
Fourth Assignment of Error
Petitioners challenged the hearings officer’s findings on noise impacts, arguing they were unsupported by substantial evidence and that a noise study should have been required under ZDO 806.02(J).
The hearings officer relied on intervenor’s decibel readings, which showed average levels below the 60 dB(A) limit, as well as petitioners’ own readings that did not conclusively exceed the standard. While noise spikes and audible sound offsite were acknowledged, the code regulates average levels only and does not prohibit audible noise. The officer also found that site characteristics made compliance feasible.
Because the code leaves noise studies to county discretion, the failure to require one was not an error. Substantial evidence supported the findings, and petitioners’ vegetation arguments did not undermine them. The fourth assignment of error was denied.
Fifth Assignment of Error
Petitioners argued that the hearings officer’s findings on traffic impacts were unsupported because the county’s transportation analysis assumed 36 events per year, while approval was granted for up to 52.
The hearings officer relied on county transportation staff, who concluded that although the event business would slightly increase traffic (and crash risk) on South Beavercreek Road, the added trips would not exceed road capacity or create/exacerbate hazards. Updated staff reports and memoranda specifically addressed the 52-event proposal, finding the increase too small to warrant mitigation given average daily traffic volumes (~2,400 trips).
Concerns about intoxicated drivers were also raised, but the hearings officer found intervenor had strong incentives to regulate alcohol and prevent impaired driving, and that the use would not create higher risks than other alcohol-serving businesses.
The reviewing body agreed that staff reports provided substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the transportation system was adequate. The fifth assignment of error was denied.
Sixth Assignment of Error
Petitioners challenged the hearings officer’s findings on intervenor’s alternative proposal to build a new reception building and use a tent for receptions, arguing the findings were inconsistent and unsupported.
The hearings officer stated there was “no need to address the revised proposal” since approval was based on use of the barn, but also remarked that the site was large enough to accommodate a reception building. The decision, however, did not apply the approval criteria to that alternative.
The reviewing body agreed the decision was unclear but ultimately concluded that it did not approve construction or use of a new reception building. The sixth assignment of error was denied.
The county’s decision was remanded.