544 P.3d 428
Or. Ct. App.2024Background
- The case involves an application for a relative farm help dwelling on farmland zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) in Lane County, Oregon.
- The Lane County Planning Director approved the application, and a county hearings officer affirmed, finding that ORS 197.307(4) required only “clear and objective” standards to be applied.
- Landwatch Lane County petitioned to LUBA, arguing that ORS 197.307(4) did not apply to housing development on EFU land outside the urban growth boundary (UGB).
- LUBA reversed and remanded, holding that ORS 197.307(4) applies only to housing within a UGB.
- On judicial review, the core question was whether LUBA correctly interpreted the scope of ORS 197.307(4) as amended in 2017.
- The court focused on statutory text, context, and legislative history to resolve the interpretive question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does ORS 197.307(4) apply to farm dwellings on EFU land outside the UGB? | Helsel: Statute’s text is broad/unambiguous and applies to all housing development | Landwatch: Statute applies only within UGB | Statute applies only to housing within UGB; not EFU lands |
| Were the approval criteria for relative farm help dwellings clear and objective? | Helsel: Not required to satisfy discretionary criteria due to ORS 197.307(4) | Landwatch: Criteria must be applied | Discretionary criteria must be considered on remand |
| Legislative history’s role in interpreting statutory scope | Helsel: Statute’s text is clear; legislative history irrelevant | Landwatch: History supports UGB-only reading | Legislative history confirms UGB limitation |
| Was the amendment's removal of “buildable lands” material? | Helsel: Expanded statute’s scope to all lands | Landwatch: Focus remains on UGB per context | Change did not expand scope to EFU land outside UGB |
Key Cases Cited
- Warren v. Washington County, 296 Or App 595 (Or. Ct. App. 2019) (addressed the scope of ORS 197.307(4) on clear and objective standards for housing, but did not rule on non-UGB land)
- Lane County v. LCDC, 325 Or 569 (Or. 1997) (sets out principles for interpreting statutes as a harmonious whole)
- State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160 (Or. 2009) (establishes that legislative history can be considered even if statutory text seems clear)
- Lake Oswego Preservation Society v. City of Lake Oswego, 360 Or 115 (Or. 2016) (counsels against overly broad statutory interpretations)