ROBERTS, J.
We granted review to consider the applicability of statewide land use planning goals, in this case Goal 3 for agricultural lands, to county land use decisions after Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) acknowledgment of a county’s comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances.
The Polk County Board of Commissioners granted respondents a building permit for a dwelling in conjunction with a farm use. The Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) reversed. LUBA declined to apply the standards set out in the county ordinance for new development on existing lots
in the farm/forest (F/F) zone. Instead, it assessed the county’s decision against its interpretation of the standards of Goal 3.
The Court of Appeals reversed LUBA, 60 Or App 1, 652 P2d 1276 (1982), finding that because LCDC, in its acknowledgment order, expressly approved the farm use standard, Goal 3 was inapplicable to the case. We affirm the Court of Appeals and go one step further. We hold that after acknowledgment, the county plan and implementing zoning regulations control land use decisions. This is so by virtue of ORS 197.605(5), the statute which regulates our review in post-acknowledgment cases. Our analysis applies to review of any post-acknowledgment land use decision, whether or not LCDC expressly addresses a particular ordinance in its acknowledgment order. The county’s decision in this case complied with its acknowledged plan and implementing ordinances.
FACTS
The Byrds, respondents in this court, applied for a permit to build a dwelling on their 1.02 acre parcel in Polk County’s F/F zone. In order to erect a dwelling on agricultural land in that zone Polk County’s acknowledged ordinances require an applicant to demonstrate that the dwelling either (1) is permitted outright pursuant to county ordinance sections 138.030(a) and 136.020, that is, is a dwelling in conjunction with a farm use, or, (2) meets the criteria for a non-farm dwelling set forth in ordinance section 138.040(1), incorporating ORS 215.213(3).
Simply stated an applicant choosing the first route must show that the land to be built upon is a farm; otherwise he or she must prove that the land is unsuitable for farming, a non-farm parcel.
On October 5, 1981, the county granted the Byrds’ request for a dwelling permitted outright because it concluded that the Byrds could put their parcel to a farm use as that term is defined in ordinance section 110.223, set forth
infra.
The county determined that (1) the property could be farmed profitably as an intensive commercial farm for the raising of rabbits and raspberries, (2) the Byrds’ use of the land would increase the aggregate agricultural enterprise in the area, and (3) the parcel was sufficiently large to accommodate the intended farming activities.
LUBA reversed the county, apparently finding it had “[improperly construed the applicable law.” ORS Section 5(4)(a)(E>), ch 772, Or Laws 1979, as amended by ch 748, Or Laws 1981. LUBA determined that the profitability criterion was an inadequate definition of commercial farm, because it had rejected such a standard in
Sane Orderly Development v. Douglas County Bd of Comm’rs,
2 Or LUBA 196 (1981). Even though “farm use” is the only standard set forth in the acknowledged ordinance for construction of dwellings in the F/F zone, LUBA decided that “LCDC did not mean to imply [in its acknowledgment order] that the applicable standard for new dwellings in an F/F zone need only be a finding the dwelling is to be used in conjunction with ‘farm use.’ ” LUBA, therefore, relied exclusively on Goal 3 and interpreted a commercial farm to be, at a minimum, one which is of comparable size to others in the area. It ruled that dwellings in the F/F zone could be erected only on parcels sufficiently large to ensure “continuation of the existing commercial agricultural enterprise within the area,” language drawn from Goal 3. Unless thatprequisite is met, profitability, according to LUBA, is irrelevant. LUBA concluded that because the Byrds’ parcel was smaller than surrounding commercial agricultural tracts it was presumptively unsuitable for a commercial agricultural enterprise.
The Court of Appeals reversed LUBA. It reasoned that LCDC had expressly approved in its acknowledgment order the county’s “farm use” standard for new building on existing lots in the F/F zone. The court noted that the county’s standards for building on existing lots were challenged during the acknowledgment process for noncompliance with Goal 3. The attack was rejected by LCDC in its acknowledgment order:
“Fourth, 1000 Friends object that new farm dwellings in the [exclusive farm use] EFU and F/F zones are allowed on existing lots without a showing that such lots are appropriate for the continuation of commercial agricultural enterprises in the area. The EFU and F/F Zones require that new dwellings must be in conjunction with a farm use (Section 136.020). This issue was not previously objected to by 1000 Friends.”
The court was further persuaded that Goal 3 standards do not apply because the county had declined to set a
minimum lot size for the F/F zone. Ordinance section 138.010 set forth
infra.
The court relied exclusively on the acknowledged plan and ordinances, sections 138.030(a) and 136.020, and determined that a commercial farm is one which meets the county’s definition of farm use:
“110.223. FARM USE. ‘Farm Use’ means the current employment of land including that portion of such lands under buildings supporting accepted farming practices for the [primary] purpose of obtaining a profit in money by raising, harvesting and selling crops or by the feeding, breeding, management and sale of, or the product of, livestock, poultry, furbearing animals or honeybees or for dairying and the sale of dairy products or any other agricultural or horticultural use or animal husbandry or any combination thereof. ‘Farm use’ includes the preparation and storage of the products raised on such land for man’s use and animal use and disposal by marketing or otherwise. * * *.”
Profitability, according to the Court of Appeals, is the only consideration in the county’s decision. Because the Byrds had adequately demonstrated that they could farm their parcel intensively at a profit, the county’s decision was affirmed.
We review pursuant to ORS Section 6a(8)(a), ch 772, Or Laws 1979, as amended by ch 748, Or Laws 1981, to examine whether LUBA’s order was unlawful in substance.
THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT PROCESS
LCDC is charged with authority to review county comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances for compliance with the statewide planning goals.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
ROBERTS, J.
We granted review to consider the applicability of statewide land use planning goals, in this case Goal 3 for agricultural lands, to county land use decisions after Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) acknowledgment of a county’s comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances.
The Polk County Board of Commissioners granted respondents a building permit for a dwelling in conjunction with a farm use. The Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) reversed. LUBA declined to apply the standards set out in the county ordinance for new development on existing lots
in the farm/forest (F/F) zone. Instead, it assessed the county’s decision against its interpretation of the standards of Goal 3.
The Court of Appeals reversed LUBA, 60 Or App 1, 652 P2d 1276 (1982), finding that because LCDC, in its acknowledgment order, expressly approved the farm use standard, Goal 3 was inapplicable to the case. We affirm the Court of Appeals and go one step further. We hold that after acknowledgment, the county plan and implementing zoning regulations control land use decisions. This is so by virtue of ORS 197.605(5), the statute which regulates our review in post-acknowledgment cases. Our analysis applies to review of any post-acknowledgment land use decision, whether or not LCDC expressly addresses a particular ordinance in its acknowledgment order. The county’s decision in this case complied with its acknowledged plan and implementing ordinances.
FACTS
The Byrds, respondents in this court, applied for a permit to build a dwelling on their 1.02 acre parcel in Polk County’s F/F zone. In order to erect a dwelling on agricultural land in that zone Polk County’s acknowledged ordinances require an applicant to demonstrate that the dwelling either (1) is permitted outright pursuant to county ordinance sections 138.030(a) and 136.020, that is, is a dwelling in conjunction with a farm use, or, (2) meets the criteria for a non-farm dwelling set forth in ordinance section 138.040(1), incorporating ORS 215.213(3).
Simply stated an applicant choosing the first route must show that the land to be built upon is a farm; otherwise he or she must prove that the land is unsuitable for farming, a non-farm parcel.
On October 5, 1981, the county granted the Byrds’ request for a dwelling permitted outright because it concluded that the Byrds could put their parcel to a farm use as that term is defined in ordinance section 110.223, set forth
infra.
The county determined that (1) the property could be farmed profitably as an intensive commercial farm for the raising of rabbits and raspberries, (2) the Byrds’ use of the land would increase the aggregate agricultural enterprise in the area, and (3) the parcel was sufficiently large to accommodate the intended farming activities.
LUBA reversed the county, apparently finding it had “[improperly construed the applicable law.” ORS Section 5(4)(a)(E>), ch 772, Or Laws 1979, as amended by ch 748, Or Laws 1981. LUBA determined that the profitability criterion was an inadequate definition of commercial farm, because it had rejected such a standard in
Sane Orderly Development v. Douglas County Bd of Comm’rs,
2 Or LUBA 196 (1981). Even though “farm use” is the only standard set forth in the acknowledged ordinance for construction of dwellings in the F/F zone, LUBA decided that “LCDC did not mean to imply [in its acknowledgment order] that the applicable standard for new dwellings in an F/F zone need only be a finding the dwelling is to be used in conjunction with ‘farm use.’ ” LUBA, therefore, relied exclusively on Goal 3 and interpreted a commercial farm to be, at a minimum, one which is of comparable size to others in the area. It ruled that dwellings in the F/F zone could be erected only on parcels sufficiently large to ensure “continuation of the existing commercial agricultural enterprise within the area,” language drawn from Goal 3. Unless thatprequisite is met, profitability, according to LUBA, is irrelevant. LUBA concluded that because the Byrds’ parcel was smaller than surrounding commercial agricultural tracts it was presumptively unsuitable for a commercial agricultural enterprise.
The Court of Appeals reversed LUBA. It reasoned that LCDC had expressly approved in its acknowledgment order the county’s “farm use” standard for new building on existing lots in the F/F zone. The court noted that the county’s standards for building on existing lots were challenged during the acknowledgment process for noncompliance with Goal 3. The attack was rejected by LCDC in its acknowledgment order:
“Fourth, 1000 Friends object that new farm dwellings in the [exclusive farm use] EFU and F/F zones are allowed on existing lots without a showing that such lots are appropriate for the continuation of commercial agricultural enterprises in the area. The EFU and F/F Zones require that new dwellings must be in conjunction with a farm use (Section 136.020). This issue was not previously objected to by 1000 Friends.”
The court was further persuaded that Goal 3 standards do not apply because the county had declined to set a
minimum lot size for the F/F zone. Ordinance section 138.010 set forth
infra.
The court relied exclusively on the acknowledged plan and ordinances, sections 138.030(a) and 136.020, and determined that a commercial farm is one which meets the county’s definition of farm use:
“110.223. FARM USE. ‘Farm Use’ means the current employment of land including that portion of such lands under buildings supporting accepted farming practices for the [primary] purpose of obtaining a profit in money by raising, harvesting and selling crops or by the feeding, breeding, management and sale of, or the product of, livestock, poultry, furbearing animals or honeybees or for dairying and the sale of dairy products or any other agricultural or horticultural use or animal husbandry or any combination thereof. ‘Farm use’ includes the preparation and storage of the products raised on such land for man’s use and animal use and disposal by marketing or otherwise. * * *.”
Profitability, according to the Court of Appeals, is the only consideration in the county’s decision. Because the Byrds had adequately demonstrated that they could farm their parcel intensively at a profit, the county’s decision was affirmed.
We review pursuant to ORS Section 6a(8)(a), ch 772, Or Laws 1979, as amended by ch 748, Or Laws 1981, to examine whether LUBA’s order was unlawful in substance.
THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT PROCESS
LCDC is charged with authority to review county comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances for compliance with the statewide planning goals. ORS 197.040(2) (d). The acknowledgment order is LCDC’s recognition that the plan and regulations conform with the goals. ORS 197.015(1). Prior to acknowledgment, land use decisions are made “in compliance with the goals.” ORS 197.175(2)(c). After acknowledgment the county must “make land use decisions in compliance with the acknowledged plan and land use regulations.” ORS 197.175(2)(d). In the normal post-acknowledgment case, a reviewing court or agency would have no occasion
to look beyond the plan or ordinance to assure itself of goals compliance. The statewide goals are necessarily met if the county’s decision comports with the acknowledged plan and implementing ordinances.
THE ACKNOWLEDGED PLAN AND ORDINANCES
On March 25, 1981, LCDC acknowledged Polk County’s comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances to be in compliance with statewide planning goals as provided by ORS 197.251. Included in this acknowledgment was the county’s designation of 33,000 acres as a Farm/Forest zone.
The Farm/Forest Comprehensive Plan Designation provides that “[i]t is the intent of the Farm/Forest designation to provide an opportunity for the continuation of and creation of large and small-scale commercial farm and forestry operations.”
Polk County’s legislative findings, at section 138.010, regarding the F/F zone include the following:
“In Polk County, there are lands suitable for either agricultural or forest uses which are employed in a variety of ways, ranging from small woodlots to large-scale timber management; from small-scale intensively managed commercial family farms to larger acreages of grazing land, to the marginal lands.
* * * *
“Further, consistent with the diverse character of this zone, there shall be no minimum lot size, recognizing that the actual and potential land use conditions vary from intensive to extensive cultivation and use. Polk County will review land divisions and non-natural resource uses to assure compatability with the preferred natural resource uses allowed outright in this zone. Finally, the Board of County Commissioners has adopted this zone to deal with a myriad of potential uses, while recognizing the primary orientation of this zone towards farm and forest uses.”
Permitted uses in the F/F zone include “any use permitted outright in the exclusive farm use zone * * Section 138.030(a). Uses permitted in the EFU zone are set forth in section 136.020. They include “ farm uses” (defined in section 110.223 and set forth above) and “single family dwellings.” We note that ORS 215.213(1)(f) allows those dwellings in an
exclusive farm use zone “customarily provided in conjunction with farm use.” Although the ordinance does not appear to include this phrase, we interpret the ordinance consistent with state law. This was the interpretation imposed by the County Board of Commissioners below and by LCDC in its acknowledgment order.
LUBA ruled that unless Goal 3’s lot size standard as interpreted in LCDC policy statements was incorporated into the acknowledged ordinance, and applied and met in the instant case, the county’s decision must fail. LUBA’s decision is incorrect for two reasons.
First, LCDC policy pursuant to Goal 3 specifically exempts from the lot size requirements intensive commercial farm operations.
Second, and fundamental to this decision, the fact that a county’s plan and ordinances have been acknowledged is sufficient to restrict review of the county’s decision to one for compliance with the plan and ordinances. LUBA disregarded the acknowledged plan and ordinances, choosing instead to apply Goal 3 standards as it would in a preacknowledgment review. This was error.
We hold that once
acknowledgment has been achieved, land use decisions must be measured not against the goals but against the acknowledged plan and implementing ordinances.
Petitioner challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the county’s decision but only as the evidence may apply to standards other than the farm use criteria of section 110.223. Because it is not challenged we do not review the sufficiency of the evidence to support the farm use standard.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The Court of Appeals remanded. We cannot determine why nor could the parties at oral argument. This affirmance does not encompass the remand.