Ruling: Marijuana potential doesn’t prevent rezone
A property’s capacity to grow marijuana doesn’t mean it’s suitable for farming and cannot be rezoned for residential purposes, according to Oregon’s land use adjudicators.
The Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals has rejected the argument that potential marijuana cultivation on a 33-acre property near Coburg is a profitable farm use that should prevent it from being split into 10-acre lots.
Lane County approved the designation of the property as “nonresource land” and changed it to a “rural residential” zone, but the decision was challenged last year before LUBA by the Landwatch Lane County farmland preservation group.
Soils on the 33-acre tract are considered Class VI, which the USDA considers to “have severe limitations that make them generally unsuited to cultivation.”
Landwatch Lane County argued that marijuana could still be grown on the property regardless of the soil class because it’s often planted in “cloth pots or buckets,” contradicting the county’s determination that the land isn’t suitable for agriculture.
The landowner, Bill Sproul, argued that nothing in Oregon’s land use goal of preserving farmland would require landowners to “commit a federal crime and risk forfeiture of their property to the federal government.”
LUBA has agreed with Sproul that marijuana production “can occur equally well on a parking lot as it could on 80 acres of high value farmland.”
Although marijuana is defined under Oregon law as a crop and can legally be grown on the property under Lane County’s code, cultivation of the psychoactive plant is “entirely separate and disconnected from the land” that’s meant to be protected, according to LUBA.
The board also rejected Landwatch Lane County’s argument that livestock can be raised on the property, which a previous owner used for alpaca farming until 2004.
While the conservation group pointed to the previous landowner’s advertisement that the property can generate up to $120,000 per year, Sproul said the alpaca farm “totally failed” at being “commercially viable.”
Despite these conflicting claim, LUBA ruled that Landwatch hadn’t “so undermined” Sproul’s evidence as to render the county’s decision unreasonable.
Finally, LUBA dismissed the argument that adequate water exists on the property for irrigated agriculture since there’s no evidence that water rights can be obtained to use seasonal water sources on the property.