Site search
sponsored by
Home
News
The Oregon Supreme Court on Thursday threw out a state administrative rule that prohibited the consideration of profitability when determining whether land is suitable for farming.
The court said farm profits can be taken into account when trying to decide whether a parcel should remain zoned for farm use or allowed to be changed for other purposes.
The ruling came in a case involving a pair of land use appeals originating in Douglas County. Great American Properties and Randy and Dannette Walker sought approval for separate housing developments in the Melrose area.
Great American Properties originally argued before the Douglas County Planning Commission that the quality of the soil on the company’s 161-acre parcel at the intersection of Melrose and Colonial Roads was so poor it could not sustain crops. The Walkers contended the same thing about their 26-acre tract on Elgarose Road.
The Planning Commission agreed with the findings and approved both housing project applications. On appeal, the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals said the county improperly considered the potential for profits when looking at soil quality and whether a parcel should be zoned for farm use.
In March 2006, the Oregon Court of Appeals held that the rule’s prohibition on the consideration of gross farm income conflicted with the statutory definition of “farm use” in the state’s land use goals. The appeals court invalidated part of the rule but upheld the rule’s prohibition of the consideration of profitability.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that both prohibitions were invalid and overturned the rule. The cases will be remanded to the Land Use Board of Appeals.
Experts testified at the original Planning Commission hearings that only 12 percent of the Great American Properties site was suitable for growing grapes and wasn’t viable for establishment of a commercial vineyard. At the same time, they said the property could support 17 cattle for grazing but that wasn’t enough, either, to support a farm operation.
Similar findings were made on the Walker property.
Shelley Wetherell and Friends of Douglas County appealed both cases. They were joined by Janell Stradtner, a Melrose resident, on the Great American appeal.
The Court of Appeals remanded the cases back to LUBA after determining that gross farm income could be considered in weighing whether a parcel should remain in farm use. The applicants sought a ruling from the Supreme Court after arguing that net profit, rather than gross income, should be the standard used.
In its ruling, the high court agreed.
Oregon’s land use policy concerning agricultural land, which dates back nearly 35 years, seeks to preserve as much farmland as possible. Under that policy, land that is “suitable for farm use” must be preserved.
The Supreme Court said that farm profits may be considered as a factor in determining whether a parcel is suitable for farm use.
• You can reach reporter John Sowell at 957-4209 or by e-mail at jsowell@newsreview.info.
The court said farm profits can be taken into account when trying to decide whether a parcel should remain zoned for farm use or allowed to be changed for other purposes.
The ruling came in a case involving a pair of land use appeals originating in Douglas County. Great American Properties and Randy and Dannette Walker sought approval for separate housing developments in the Melrose area.
Great American Properties originally argued before the Douglas County Planning Commission that the quality of the soil on the company’s 161-acre parcel at the intersection of Melrose and Colonial Roads was so poor it could not sustain crops. The Walkers contended the same thing about their 26-acre tract on Elgarose Road.
The Planning Commission agreed with the findings and approved both housing project applications. On appeal, the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals said the county improperly considered the potential for profits when looking at soil quality and whether a parcel should be zoned for farm use.
In March 2006, the Oregon Court of Appeals held that the rule’s prohibition on the consideration of gross farm income conflicted with the statutory definition of “farm use” in the state’s land use goals. The appeals court invalidated part of the rule but upheld the rule’s prohibition of the consideration of profitability.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that both prohibitions were invalid and overturned the rule. The cases will be remanded to the Land Use Board of Appeals.
Experts testified at the original Planning Commission hearings that only 12 percent of the Great American Properties site was suitable for growing grapes and wasn’t viable for establishment of a commercial vineyard. At the same time, they said the property could support 17 cattle for grazing but that wasn’t enough, either, to support a farm operation.
Similar findings were made on the Walker property.
Shelley Wetherell and Friends of Douglas County appealed both cases. They were joined by Janell Stradtner, a Melrose resident, on the Great American appeal.
The Court of Appeals remanded the cases back to LUBA after determining that gross farm income could be considered in weighing whether a parcel should remain in farm use. The applicants sought a ruling from the Supreme Court after arguing that net profit, rather than gross income, should be the standard used.
In its ruling, the high court agreed.
Oregon’s land use policy concerning agricultural land, which dates back nearly 35 years, seeks to preserve as much farmland as possible. Under that policy, land that is “suitable for farm use” must be preserved.
The Supreme Court said that farm profits may be considered as a factor in determining whether a parcel is suitable for farm use.
• You can reach reporter John Sowell at 957-4209 or by e-mail at jsowell@newsreview.info.
