## Facts

- Douglas County approved a comprehensive plan amendment and zone change for a 259-acre parcel that had been part of a 590-acre ranch, concluding the parcel was not “agricultural land” under OAR 660-033-0020(1).
- Neighboring opponents challenged the approval to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), asserting the parcel qualified as agricultural land protected by Goal 3 rules.
- LUBA reversed the county, determining the parcel was “agricultural land” under OAR 660-033-0020(1)(b) because it was “within a farm unit.”
- The developer sought judicial review, arguing LUBA misconstrued “farm unit” by not requiring proof that the overall ranch could be profitably farmed (including profitably grazed).
- The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development participated as amicus, supporting LUBA’s interpretation consistent with the statewide agricultural land preservation program.

## Issues

1. Whether “farm unit” in OAR 660-033-0020(1)(b) requires that the farm unit be economically viable or profitably operated.
2. Whether, under the correct interpretation of “farm unit,” the 259-acre parcel qualified as “agricultural land” under OAR 660-033-0020(1)(b).

## Decision

- The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed LUBA.
- The court held that OAR 660-033-0020(1)(b) does not impose a profitability requirement as a condition for land to be “within a farm unit.”
- The court concluded LUBA’s determination that the parcel was agricultural land within a farm unit was not “unlawful in substance” under ORS 197.850(9)(a).

## Legal Principles

- Under OAR 660-033-0020(1)(b), land qualifies as “agricultural land” when it is “within a farm unit” and is necessary to permit farm practices on a commercial agricultural enterprise.
- “Farm unit” is interpreted from the rule’s text and context within Goal 3 and its implementing rules; it focuses on functional integration with farm use rather than proof of present profitability.
- A construction that allows removal of agricultural protections based solely on asserted lack of profit is inconsistent with the regulatory structure aimed at preserving agricultural lands.
- On judicial review, the court asks whether LUBA’s order is “unlawful in substance” under ORS 197.850(9)(a), not whether the reviewing court would reach a different policy result.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed LUBA’s reversal of Douglas County’s rezoning approval, holding that a “farm unit” under OAR 660-033-0020(1)(b) does not require proof that the land can be profitably farmed; the parcel remained protected agricultural land because it was within an integrated farm unit supporting commercial farm practices.


Wetherell v. Douglas County, 235 Or. App. 246, 230 P.3d 976 (Or. Ct. App. 2010)