Kandu Ranch, LLC v. Jackson County

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Land Use
  • Date Filed: 11-18-2015
  • Case #: 2015-058/060
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Opinion by Ryan
  • Full Text Opinion

ORS 197.665(3), consistent with ORS 215.283(2)(o), allows local governments to approve “a residential home in an existing dwelling” in exclusive farm use (EFU) zones, whereas a “residential facility” is only allowed in residential zones; accordingly, a local government’s approval of an application for a “residential facility” in an EFU zone will be grounds for reversal, pursuant to OAR 661-010-0071(1)(c), as a “violat[ion] of applicable law and [. . .] prohibited as a matter of law.”

On January 20, 2015, Journey to Completion Center, LLC, filed an application for approval of an inpatient residential treatment center for up to fifteen persons with drug, alcohol, and other substance abuse problems. The residential treatment center was proposed to be sited in an existing dwelling on 96 acres of land zoned exclusive farm use (EFU). County planning staff issued a tentative decision approving the application, subject to conditions, and Kandu Ranch, LLC (Kandu), appealed the staff decision. On local appeal, the hearings officer issued a final decision approving the application, and Kandu appealed to LUBA.

In its first of assignment of error, Kandu argued that county’s decision should be reversed pursuant to OAR 661-010-0071(1)(c) because it violates a provision of, or is prohibited by, ORS 215.283(2)(o) and ORS 3 197.665(3)(a), LCDC’s implementing rules, Jackson County Land Development Ordinance (LDO) 4.2.6(J) and LDO Table 4.2-1, and the county’s implementing code provisions. LUBA sustained Kandu’s first assignment of error, having determined that the proposed treatment center was not a “residential home,” which is an allowed use in EFU zones, but rather a “residential facility” that is restricted to residential zones, and that therefore the county decision “violates a provision of applicable law and is prohibited as a matter of law[,]” and is subject to reversal under OAR 661-010-0071(1)(c). Given its disposition of the first assignment of error, LUBA did not address the second assignment of error and the county’s decision was REVERSED.