2025-334-Ordinance No. 2025-014 Recorded 10/7/2025REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2025-334
Steve Dennison, County Clerk
Commissioners' Journal 10/07/2025 2:39.48 PM
_,������ IIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIliIIIIIII
2025-334
For Recording Stamp Only
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Ordinance Amending Deschutes County
Code Title 23, to Adopt an Exception to Goal 4
and to Change the Comprehensive Plan Map
Designation for Certain Property From Forest
to Rural Residential Exception Area, and
Amending Deschutes County Code Title 18,
the Deschutes County Zoning Map, to Change
the Zone Designation for Certain Property
From Forest Use 2 to Multiple Use Agricultural
and Declaring an Emergency.
*
*
*
* ORDINANCE NO. 2025-014
*
*
*
WHEREAS, McKenzie Meadow Village, LLC ("Applicant"), proposed a "reasons" exception to
Goal 4 and applied for changes to both the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan (247-24-
000839-PA) and the Deschutes County Zoning Map (247-24-000840-ZC), to change the
Comprehensive Plan designation from Forest (F) to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA) and
the zoning designation from Forest Use 2 (F2) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA10); and
WHEREAS, after notice was given in accordance with applicable law, a public hearing was
held on April 7, 2025, before a Deschutes County Hearings Officer and, on June 25, 2025, the
Hearings Officer recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment, zone change
and Goal Exception;
WHEREAS, pursuant to DCC 22.28.030(C), on August 6, 2025, the Board heard de novo the
applications to change the comprehensive plan designation of the subject property from Forest
(F) to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA), a corresponding zone change from Forest Use - 2
(F2) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA10); now, therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as
follows:
PAGE 1 OF 3 -ORDINANCE NO.2025-014
Section 1. AMENDMENT. DCC Title 23, Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map, is
amended to change the plan designation for certain property described in Exhibit "A" and depicted
on the map set forth as Exhibit "B" from Forest to RREA, with both exhibits attached and
incorporated by reference herein.
Section 2. AMENDMENT. DCC Title 18, Zoning Map, is amended to change the zone
designation for certain property described in Exhibit "A" and depicted on the map set forth as
Exhibit "C" from F2 to MUA10, with both exhibits attached and incorporated by reference herein.
Section 3. AMENDMENT. DCC Section 23.01.010, Introduction, is amended to read as
described in Exhibit "D" attached and incorporated by reference herein, with new language
underlined.
Section 4. AMENDMENT. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Section 5.10, Goal
Exception Statements, is amended to read as described in Exhibit "E" attached and incorporated
by reference herein, with new language underlined.
Section 5. AMENDMENT. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Section 5.12, Legislative
History, is amended to read as described in Exhibit "F" attached and incorporated by reference
herein, with new language underlined.
Section 6. FINDINGS. The Board adopts as its findings in support of this Ordinance the
Decision of the Board of County Commissioners as set forth in Exhibit "G" and incorporated by
reference herein. The Board also incorporates in its findings in support of this decision, the
Decision of the Hearings Officer, attached as Exhibit "H" and incorporated by reference herein.
Section 7. EMERGENCY. This Ordinance being necessary for the public peace, health, and
safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this Ordinance takes effect on its passage.
Signatures on following page
PAGE 2 OF 3 - ORDINANCE NO.2025-014
Dated this 6`- of 0 , 2025
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
PHIL CHANG, Commissioner
Date of 1st Reading: day of C)UI — 2025.
Date of 2nd Reading: � 1 day of b � - 2025.
Record of Adoption Vote:
Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused
Anthony DeBone
Patti Adair
Phil Chang
Effective date: b day ofy 2025`
PAGE 3 OF 3 - ORDINANCE NO.2025-014
Exhibit A
Legal Descriptions of Affected Properties
Lot 1 of McKinney Butte Ranch, Deschutes County, Oregon;
Lot 2 of McKinney Butte Ranch, Deschutes County, Oregon;
Lot 3 of McKinney Butte Ranch, Deschutes County Oregon; and,
A Parcel of Land situated in the Northwest Quarter and the Southwest Quarter of Section 5,
Township 15 South, Ranch 10 East, Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon being
more particularly described as follows:
That Certain "Private Road" Right -Of -Way known as "McKinney Ranch Road" as defined on
the "McKinney Butte Ranch" Subdivision Plat Map, (Plat No. 728), Deschutes County
Records.
Rural Residential
E cx eption`Area
o v
i
0
Forest
r15100,
500012000
Plan Amendment from Forest (F)
to Rura! Residential Exception
Area (RREA)
1'51'0050001205
3 1510050001203
1510050001202 05$
0 0
s
I -VI TM
ik
C M
O
Proposed Plan Amendment Proposed Plan BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
� Boundary Amendment OF D SCHUT S C Tv, OREGON
Forest A ony DeBon , Ch it
r
RREA - Rural Residential Exhibit "B" pa Adair, Vice Chair
Exception Area to Ordinance 2025-014
City of Sisters Boundary " Phil Chang, Commissioner
j o
0 '1 1,000
ATTEST: Recording Secretary
Feet Dated this b day of 2025
Effective Date: ®/_M. 2025
08/12/2025
Proposed Zone Boundary
® RURAL RESIDENTIAL
MULTIPLE USE AGRICULTURAL
FOREST USE 2
FOREST USE 1
®® City of Sisters Boundary
1510050001200
Zone`Cliange from Forest Use - 2
(F2) to Multiple -Use Agricultural
(MUA10)
1,51!0050001205
FOREST'USE
@ 1510050001203
1510050001202
a
Proposed
Zoning
Exhibit "C" to Ordinance 2025-014
8/12/2025
N
0 A 1,000
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES C NT", OREGON
thonythony De ne Chair
tti Adair, Vice Chair
Phhang, Comoner
ATTEST: Recording Secretary
Dated this - _ day of D 2025
Effective Date: 10 -- Tbb 2025
Feet
08/12/2025
Exhibit "D" to Ordinance 2025-014
TITLE 23 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CHAPTER 23.01 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
A. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2011-003 and
found on the Deschutes County Community Development Department website, is incorporated
by reference herein.
B. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2011-027, are incorporated by reference herein.
C. [Repealed by Ordinance 2013-001, §11
D. [Repealed by Ordinance 2023-017]
E. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2012-012, are incorporated by reference herein.
F. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2012-016, are incorporated by reference herein.
G. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2013-002, are incorporated by reference herein.
H. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2013-009, are incorporated by reference herein.
I. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2013-012, are incorporated by reference herein.
J. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2013-007, are incorporated by reference herein.
K. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2014-005, are incorporated by reference herein.
L. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2014-006, are incorporated by reference herein.
M. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2014-012, are incorporated by reference herein.
N. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2014-021, are incorporated by reference herein.
O. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2014-027, are incorporated by reference herein.
P. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2015-021, are incorporated by reference herein.
Exhibit D to Ordinance 2025-015
Q. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2015-029, are incorporated by reference herein.
R. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2015-018, are incorporated by reference herein.
S. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2015-010, are incorporated by reference herein.
T. [Repealed by Ordinance 2016-027 §11
U. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2016-022, are incorporated by reference herein.
V. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2016-005, are incorporated by reference herein.
W. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2016-027, are incorporated by reference herein.
X. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2016-029, are incorporated by reference herein.
Y. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2017-007, are incorporated by reference herein.
Z. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2018-002, are incorporated by reference herein.
AA. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2018-006, are incorporated by reference herein.
AB. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2018-011, are incorporated by reference herein.
AC. [repealed by Ord. 2019-010 §1, 20191
AD. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2018-008, are incorporated by reference herein.
AE. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-002, are incorporated by reference herein.
AF. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-001, are incorporated by reference herein.
AG. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-003, are incorporated by reference herein.
AH. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-004, are incorporated by reference herein.
Exhibit D to Ordinance 2025-015
Al. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-011, are incorporated by reference herein.
AJ. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-006, are incorporated by reference herein.
AK. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-019, are incorporated by reference herein.
AL. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-016, are incorporated by reference herein.
AM. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-001, are incorporated by reference herein.
AN. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-002, are incorporated by reference herein.
AO. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-003, are incorporated by reference herein.
AP. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-008, are incorporated by reference herein.
AQ. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-007, are incorporated by reference herein.
AR. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-006, are incorporated by reference herein.
AS. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-009, are incorporated by reference herein.
AT. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-013, are incorporated by reference herein.
AU. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2021-002, are incorporated by reference herein.
AV. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2021-005, are incorporated by reference herein.
AW. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2021-008, are incorporated by reference herein.
AX. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2022-001, are incorporated by reference herein.
AY. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2022-003, are incorporated by reference herein.
Exhibit D to Ordinance 2025-015
AZ. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2022-006, are incorporated by reference herein.
BA. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2022-010, are incorporated by reference herein.
BB. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2022-011, are incorporated by reference herein. (superseded by Ord. 2023-015)
BC. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2022-013, are incorporated by reference herein. (supplemented and controlled
by Ord. 2024-010)
BD. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2023-001, are incorporated by reference herein.
BE. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2023-007, are incorporated by reference herein.
BF. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2023-010 are incorporated by reference herein.
BG. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2023-018, are incorporated by reference herein.
BH. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2023-015, are incorporated by reference herein.
BI. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2023-025, are incorporated by reference herein.
B.I. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2024-001, are incorporated by reference herein.
BK. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2024-003, are incorporated by reference herein.
BL. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2024-007
and found on the Deschutes County Community Development Department website, is
incorporated by reference herein (superseded by Ord. 2025-007).
BM. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2024-010, are incorporated by reference herein.
BN. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2023-017, are incorporated by reference herein.
BO. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2023-016, are incorporated by reference herein.
Exhibit D to Ordinance 2025-015
BP. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2024-011, are incorporated by reference herein.
BQ. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2024-012, are incorporated by reference herein.
BR. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2025-001, are incorporated by reference herein.
BS. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2025-003, are incorporated by reference herein.
BT. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2025-010, are incorporated by reference herein.
BU. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2025-007, are incorporated by reference herein.
BV. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2025-014, are incorporated by reference herein.
Click here to be directed to the Comprehensive Plan (http://www.deschutes.org/compplan)
Exhibit D to Ordinance 2025-015
Exhibit E to Ordinance No, 2025-014
Sect' ovl' 5.10 boa L E�KCl✓�t�ow Statewt,evLtS
Background
The purpose of this section is to identify the lands where Deschutes County demonstrated an
exception to meeting the requirements of the Statewide Planning Goals. The intent of goal
exceptions is to allow some flexibility in rural areas under strictly defined circumstances. Goal
exceptions are defined and regulated by Statewide Planning Goal 2 and Oregon Administrative.
Rule 660-004 (excerpt below).
660-004-0000(2) An exception is a decision to exclude certain land from the requirements of
one or more applicable statewide goals in accordance with the process specified in Goal 2,
Part It, Exceptions. The documentation for an exception must be set forth in a local
government's comprehensive plan. Such documentation must support a conclusion that the
standards for an exception have been met.
Statewide Planning Goals with Deschutes County Exceptions
■ Goal 3 Agricultural Lands
■ Goal 4 Forest Lands
■ Goal I I Public Facilities and Services
® Goal 14 Urbanization
Three types of exceptions are permitted by Oregon Administrative Rule 660-004
■ Irrevocably committed
■ Physically developed
■ Reasons
The summary below identifies approved goal exceptions and identifies the adopting ordinance
for those interested in further information. The ordinances listed are incorporated by reference
into this Plan.
1979 Exceptions
Comprehensive Plan entire County — PL 20 - 1979
During the preparation of the 1979 Comprehensive Plan it was apparent that many rural lands
had already received substantial development and were committed to non -resource uses. Areas
were examined and identified where Goal 3 and 4 exceptions were taken. At this time
exceptions to Goals I I and 14 were not required.
The total area excepted was 41,556 acres. These lands were residentially developed,
committed to development or needed for rural service centers.
Additional Exceptions
Bend Municipal Airport — Ordinances 80-203, 1980 and 80-222, 1980
The Bend Municipal Airport received an exception to Goal 3 to allow for the necessary and
expected use of airport property.
La Pine UUC Boundary — Ordinance 98-001, 1998
Exceptions to Goals 3, 11 and 14 were taken to allow lands to be included in the La Pine UUC
boundary and planned and zoned for commercial use.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION S. I I GOAL 5 ADOPTED ORDINANCES
Exhibit E to Ordinance No. 2025-014
Spring River Rural Service Center — Ordinances 90-009, 1990; 90-010, 1990; 96-022, 1996; 96-045„
1996
A reasons exception was taken to Goal 14 to allow the establishment of the Spring River Rural
Service Center on residentially designated lands.
Burgess Road and Highway 97 — Ordinance 97-060, 1997
An exception was taken to Goal 4 to allow for road improvements.
Rural Industrial Zone — Ordinances 2010-030, 2010; 2009-007, 2009
Two separate ordinances for rural industrial uses. The 2009 exception included an irrevocably
committed exception to Goal 3 and a reasons exception to Goal 14 with a Limited Use
Combining Zone for storage, crushing, processing, sale and distribution of minerals. The 2010
exception took a reasons exception to Goal 14 with a Limited Use Combing Zone for storage,
crushing, processing, sale and distribution of minerals.
Prineville Railway — Ordinance 98-017
An exception was taken to Goal 3 to accommodate the relocation of the Redmond Railway
Depot and the use of the site for an historic structure to be utilized in conjunction with the
Crooked River Dinner Train operations.
Resort Communities — Ordinance 2001-047, 2001
An exception was taken to Goal 4 for Black Butte Ranch and Inn of the 7`h Mountain/Widgi
Creek during the designation of those communities as Resort Communities under OAR 660-
22.
Barclay Meadows Business Park — Ordinance 2003-11, 2003
A reasons exception was taken to Goal 3 to include certain property within the Sisters Urban
Growth Boundary.
Sisters School District # 6 — Ordinance 2 003-11, 2003
A reasons exception was taken to Goal 3 to include certain property within the Sisters Urban
Growth Boundary.
Sisters Organization of Activities and Recreation and Sisters School District #6 — Ordinance 2003-017,
2003
A reasons exception was taken to Goal 4 to include certain property within the Sisters Urban
Growth Boundary.
Oregon Water Wonderland Unit 2 Sewer District — Ordinances 2010-015, 2010; 2003-015, 2003
A reasons exception was taken to Goals 4 and I I to allow uses approved by the Board of
County Commissioners in PA-02-5 and ZC-02-3 as amended by PA-09-4.
City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary Amendment Quniper Ridge) — Ordinance 97-060. 1997
An exception was taken to Goal 3 to allow an amendment of the Bend Urban Growth
Boundary to incorporate 513 acres for industrial uses.
Joyce Coats Revocable Trust Johnson Road and Tumalo Reservoir Road Properties — Ordinance 2005-
015, 2005
An irrevocably committed exception was taken to Goal 3 to allow a change of comprehensive
plan designation from Surface Mining to Rural Residential Exception Area and zoning from
Surface Mining to Multiple Use Agriculture for Surface Mine Sites 306 and 307.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5. 1 1 GOAL 5 ADOPTED ORDINANCES
Exhibit E to Ordinance No. 2025-014
Watson/Generation Development inc — Ordinance 2005-0I5
An exception was taken to Goal 3 to include a portion of agricultural property.
Oregon Department of Transportation — Ordinance 2005-019, 2005
An exception was taken to Goal 3 to include a portion of agricultural property.
Conklin/Eady Property — Ordinance 2005-035, 2005
An exception was taken to Goal 3 to include a portion of agricultural property.
City of Sisters Property — Ordinance 2005-037, 2005
An exception was taken to Goal 4 to include a portion of forest property.
McKenzie Meadows Property — Ordinance 2005-039, 2005
An exception was taken to Goal 4 to include a portion of forest property.
Bend Metro Park and Recreation District Properties — Ordinance 2006-025
A reasons exception was taken to Goal 3 to include a portion of agricultural property.
Harris and Nancy Kimble Property and Portion of CLR, Inc Property A.K.A. the Klippel Pit Property —
Ordinance 2008-001, 2008
An irrevocably committed exception was taken to Goal 3 to allow reclassification and zoning
from Surface Mine to Rural Residential Exception Area and Rural Residential 10 acre for
Surface Mine Site 294.
Sunriver Service District, Sunriver Fire Department — Ordinance 2014-021, 2014
A reasons exception was taken to Goal 4 to include a portion of forest property. To ensure
that the uses in the Sunriver Utility District Zone on the approximate 4.28 acre site of Tax Lot
102 on Deschutes County Assessor's Map 19-1 1-00 are limited in nature and scope to those
justifying the exception to Goal 4 for the site, the Sunriver Forest (SUF) zoning on the subject
site shall be subject to a Limited Use Combining Zone, which will limit the uses on the subject
site to a fire training facility and access road for the Sunriver Service District and Sunriver Fire
Department.
Frances Ramsey Trust Property — Ordinance 2014-027, 2014
An "irrevocably committed" exception was taken to Goal 14 to allow for reclassification and
rezoning from agricultural property to Rural Industrial for a 2.65 acre portion of a parcel zoned
EFU/RI.
Westside Transect Zone — Ordinances 2019 — 001, 2019
Reasons exceptions to Goals 3, 4, and 14 were taken to allow the application of the Westside
Transect Zone to 717 acres of land on the west side of Bend between the urban area and the
park and public lands to the west for the development of stewardship communities where low
density residential communities are developed and managed to protect wildlife habitat and
establish wildfire mitigation and prevention strategies.
City of Bend Outback Water Facility Sewer — Ordinance 2020-003, 2020
Reasons exception to Goal I I was taken to allow use of an existing process water line to
transport both process water and sewage on rural lands outside of the City of Bend Urban
Growth Boundary (UGB). The sewage transported is produced exclusively at the Bend
Outback Water Facility.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.11 GOAL 5 ADOPTED ORDINANCES
Exhibit E to Ordinance No. 2025-014
McKenzie Meadow Village. LLC — Ordinance No. 2025-014
Reasons exception to Goal 4 was taken to allow for redesignation and rezoning from Forest/F2
to Rural Residential Exception Area/Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA10) for 58 acres adjacent to
City of Sisters Urban Growth Boundary.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION S. I I GOAL 5 ADOPTED ORDINANCES
Exhibit F to Ordinance No. 2025-014
�v►, v.:L2 t_e0�sLat�ve �-
Background
This section contains the legislative history of this Comprehensive Plan.
Table 5.12.1 Comprehensive Plan Ordinance History
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Exhibit F to Ordinance No. 2025-014
Ordinance
Date Adopted/
Chapter/Section
Amendment
Effective
All, except
Transportation, Tumalo
and Terrebonne
201 1-003
8-10-1 1/ 1 1-9-1 1
Community Plans,
Deschutes Junction,
Comprehensive Plan update
Destination Resorts and
ordinances adopted in
2011
2.5, 2.6, 3.4, 3.10, 3.5,
Housekeeping amendments
201 1-027
10-31-1 1 / 1 1-9-1 1
4.6, 5.3, 5.8, 5.1 1,
to ensure a smooth
23.40A, 23.40B,
transition to the updated
23.40.065, 23.01.010
Plan
23.60, 23.64 (repealed),
Updated Transportation
2012-005
8-20-12/ 1 1-19-12
3.7 (revised), Appendix
System Plan
C (added)
2012-012
8-20-12/8-20-12
4.1, 4.2
La Pine Urban Growth
Boundary
Housekeeping amendments
2012-016
12-3-12/3-4-13
3.9
to Destination Resort
Chapter
Central Oregon Regional
2013-002
1-7-13/ 1-7-13
4.2
Large -lot Employment Land
Need Analysis
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2013-009
2-6-13/5-8-13
1.3
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Rural Residential Exception
Area
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, including
2013-012
5-8-13/8-6-13
23.01.010
certain property within City
of Bend Urban Growth
Boundary
Newberry Country: A Plan
2013-007
5-29-13/8-27-13
3.10, 3.1 1
for Southern Deschutes
County
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Exhibit F to Ordinance No. 2025-014
Comprehensive Plan Map
10-21-13/ 10-21-
Amendment, including
2013-016
13
23.01.010
certain property within City
of Sisters Urban Growth
Boundary
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, including
2014-005
2-26-14/2-26-14
23.01.010
certain property within City
of Bend Urban Growth
Boundary
2014-012
4-2-14/7-1-14
3.10, 3.1 1
Housekeeping amendments
to Title 23.
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
designation of certain
property from Sunriver
2014-021
8-27-14/ 1 1-25-14
23.01.010, 5.10
Urban Unincorporated
Community Forest to
Sunriver Urban
Unincorporated Community
Utility
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
designation of certain
property from Sunriver
2014-021
8-27-14/ 1 1-25-14
23.01.010, 5.10
Urban Unincorporated
Community Forest to
Sunriver Urban
Unincorporated Community
Utility
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2014-027
12-15-14/3-31-15
23.01.010, 5.10
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Rural Industrial
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2015-021
1 1-9-15/2-22-16
23.01.010
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Surface Mining.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Exhibit F to Ordinance No. 2025-014
Comprehensive Plan Map
i
Amendment, changing
2015-029
1 1-23-15/ 1 1-30-
23.01.010
designation of certain
15
property from Tumalo
Residential 5-Acre Minimum
to Tumalo Industrial
2015-018
12-9-15/3-27-16
23.01.010, 2.2, 4.3
Housekeeping Amendments
to Title 23.
Comprehensive Plan Text
2015-010
12-2-15/ 12-2-15
2.6
and Map Amendment
recognizing Greater Sage -
Grouse Habitat Inventories
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2016-001
12-21-15/04-5-16
23.01.010; 5.10
designation of certain
property from, Agriculture
to Rural Industrial (exception
area)
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to add an
exception to Statewide
2016-007
2-10-16/5-10-16
23.01.010; 5.10
Planning Goal I I to allow
sewers in unincorporated
lands in Southern Deschutes
County
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment recognizing non-
2016-005
1 1-28-16/2-16-17
23.01.010, 2.2, 3.3
resource lands process
allowed under State law to
change EFU zoning
Comprehensive plan
Amendment, including
2016-022
9-28-16/ 1 1-14-16
23.01.010, 1.3, 4.2
certain property within City
of Bend Urban Growth
Boundary
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2016-029
12-14-16/ 12/28/ 16
23.01.010
designation of certain
property from, Agriculture
to Rural Industrial
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Exhibit F to Ordinance No. 2025-014
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2017-007
10-30-17/ 10-30-
23.01.010
designation of certain
17
property from Agriculture to
Rural Residential Exception
Area
Comprehensive Plan
2018-002
1-3-18/ 1-25-18
23.01, 2.6
Amendment permitting
churches in the Wildlife Area
Combining Zone
Housekeeping Amendments
correcting tax lot numbers in
Non -Significant Mining
2018-006
8-22-18/ 1 1-20-18
23.01.010, 5.8, 5.9
Mineral and Aggregate
Inventory; modifying Goal 5
Inventory of Cultural and
Historic Resources
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2018-01 1
9-12-18/ 12-1 1-18
23.01.010
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Rural Residential Exception
Area
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, removing Flood
23.01.010, 2.5, Tumalo
Plain Comprehensive Plan
2018-005
9-19-18/ 10-10-18
Community Plan,
Designation; Comprehensive
Newberry Country Plan
Plan Amendment adding
Flood Plain Combining Zone
purpose statement.
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment allowing for the
2018-008
9-26-18/ 10-26-18
23.01.010, 3.4
potential of new properties
to be designated as Rural
Commercial or Rural
Industrial
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Exhibit F to Ordinance No. 2025-01�
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment changing
designation of certain
property from Surface Mining
to Rural Residential
2019-002
1-2-19/4-2-19
23.01.010, 5.8
Exception Area; Modifying
Goal 5 Mineral and
Aggregate Inventory;
Modifying Non -Significant
Mining Mineral and Aggregate
Inventory
Comprehensive Plan and
2019-001
1-16-19/4-16-19
1.3, 3.3, 4.2, 5.10, 23.01
Text Amendment to add a
new zone to Title 19:
Westside Transect Zone.
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment changing
02-12-19/03-12-
designation of certain
2019-003
19
23.01.010, 4.2
property from Agriculture to
Redmond Urban Growth
Area for the Large Lot
Industrial Program
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment changing
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
2019-004
02-12-19/03-12-
23.01.010, 4.2
Redmond Urban Growth
19
Area for the expansion of
the Deschutes County
Fairgrounds and relocation of
Oregon Military Department
National Guard Armory.
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment to adjust the
Bend Urban Growth
Boundary to accommodate
the refinement of the Skyline
Ranch Road alignment and
2019-01 1
05-01-19/05-16/ 19
23.01.010, 4.2
the refinement of the West
Area Master Plan Area I
boundary. The ordinance
also amends the
Comprehensive Plan
designation of Urban Area
Reserve for those lands
leaving the UGB.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Exhibit F to Ordinance No. 2025-01 4.
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2019-006
03-13-19/06-1 1-
23.01.010,
designation of certain
19
property from Agriculture to
Rural Residential Exception
Area
Comprehensive Plan and
Text amendments
1 1-25-19/02-24-
incorporating language from
2019-016
20
23.01.01, 2.5
DLCD's 2014 Model Flood
Ordinance and Establishing a
purpose statement for the
Flood Plain Zone.
Comprehensive Plan and
Text amendments to provide
procedures related to the
2019-019
12-1 1-19/ 12-1 1-
23.01.01, 2.5
division of certain split zoned
19
properties containing Flood
Plain zoning and involving a
former or piped irrigation
canal.
Comprehensive Plan and
Text amendments to provide
procedures related to the
2020-001
12-1 1-19/ 12-1 1-
23.01.0 I, 2.5
division of certain split zoned
19
properties containing Flood
Plain zoning and involving a
former or piped irrigation
canal.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Exhibit F to Ordinance No. 2025-014
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment to adjust the
Redmond Urban Growth
Boundary through an equal
exchange of land to/from the
Redmond UGB. The
exchange property is being
offered to better achieve
2020-002
2-26-20/5-26-20
23.01.01, 4.2, 5.2
land needs that were detailed
in the 2012 SB 1544 by
providing more development
ready land within the
Redmond UGB. The
ordinance also amends the
Comprehensive Plan
designation of Urban Area
Reserve for those lands
leaving the UGB.
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment with exception
to Statewide Planning Goal
2020-003
02-26-20/05-26-
23.01.01, 5.10
11 (Public Facilities and
20
Services) to allow sewer on
rural lands to serve the City
of Bend Outback Water
Facility.
Comprehensive Plan
Transportation System Plan
Amendment to add
06-24-20/09-22-
roundabouts at US 20/Cook-
2020-008
20
23.01.010, Appendix C
O.B. Riley and US 20/01d
Bend -Redmond Hwy
intersections; amend Tables
5.331 and 5.372 and amend
TSP text.
07-29-20/ 10-27-
Housekeeping Amendments
2020-007
20
23.01.010, 2.6
correcting references to two
Sage Grouse ordinances.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Exhibit F to Ordinance No. 2025-014
Comprehensive Plan and
Text amendments to update
08-12-20/ 1 1-10-
the County's Resource List
2020-006
20
23.01.01, 2.1 I, 5.9
and Historic Preservation
Ordinance to comply with
the State Historic
Preservation Rule.
Comprehensive Plan
Transportation System Plan
Amendment to add
2020-009
08-19-20/ 1 1-17-
23.01.010, Appendix C
reference to J turns on US
20
97 raised median between
Bend and Redmond; delete
language about disconnecting
Vandevert Road from US 97.
Comprehensive Plan Text
And Map Designation for
Certain Properties from
Surface Mine (SM) and
Agriculture (AG) To Rural
2020-013
08-26-20/ 1 1 /24/20
23.01.01, 5.8
Residential Exception Area
(RREA) and Remove Surface
Mining Site 461 from the
County's Goal 5 Inventory of
Significant Mineral and
Aggregate Resource Sites.
Comprehensive Plan Map
2021-002
01-27-21 /04-27-
23.01.01
Designation for Certain
21
Property from Agriculture
(AG) To Rural Industrial (RI)
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment Designation for
06-16-21 /06-16-
Certain Property from
2021-005
21
23.01.01, 4.2
Agriculture (AG) To
Redmond Urban Growth
Area (RUGA) and text
amendment
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment Designation for
06-30-21/09-28-
Certain Property Adding
2021-008
21
23.01.01
Redmond Urban Growth
Area (RUGA) and Fixing
Scrivener's Error in Ord.
2020-022
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Exhibit F to Ordinance No. 2025-014
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2022-001
04-13-22/07-12-
23.01.010
designation of certain
22
property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Residential
Exception Area (RREA)
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2022-003
04-20-22/07-19-
23.01.010
designation of certain
22
property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Residential
Exception Area (RREA)
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
06-22-22/08-19-
designation of certain
2022-006
22
23.01.010
property from Rural
Residential Exception Area
(RREA) to Bend Urban
Growth Area
07-27-22/ 10-25-
Comprehensive Plan Map
2022-01 1
22
23.01.010
Designation for Certain
(superseded by
Property from Agriculture
Ord. 2023-015)
(AG) To Rural Industrial (RI)
12-14-22/03-14-
Comprehensive Plan Map
23
Designation for Certain
2022-013
(supplemented
23.01.010
Property from Agriculture
and controlled by
(AG) to Rural Residential
Ord. 2024-010)
Exception Area (RREA)
Housekeeping Amendments
correcting the location for
2023-001
03-01-23/05-30-
23.01.010, 5.9
the Lynch and Roberts Store
23
Advertisement, a designated
Cultural and Historic
Resource
Comprehensive Plan Map
Designation for Certain
2023-007
04-26-23/6-25-23
23.01.010
Property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Residential
Exception Area (RREA)
10 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Exhibit F to Ordinance No. 2025-014
Comprehensive Plan Map
Designation for Certain
2023-010
06-21-23/9-17-23
23.01.010
Property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Residential
Exception Area (RREA)
Comprehensive Plan Map
08-30-23/ 1 1-28-
Designation for Certain
2023-018
23
23.01.010
Property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Residential
Exception Area (RREA)
Comprehensive Plan Map
2023-015
9-13-23/ 12-12-23
23.01.010
Designation for Certain
Property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Industrial (RI)
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
designation of certain
2023-025
1 1-29-23/2-27-24
23.01.010
property from Rural
Residential Exception Area
(RREA) to Bend Urban
Growth Area
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment for Certain
2024-001
1-31-24/4-30-24
23.01.010
Property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Residential
Exception Area (RREA)
23.01(BM) (added), 4.7
Updated Tumalo Community
2023-016
5-8-24/8-6-24
(amended), Appendix B
Plan
(replaced)
23.01(D) (repealed),
2023-017
3-20-24/6-20-24
23.01(BJ) (added), 3.7
Updated Transportation
(amended), Appendix C
System Plan
(replaced)
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Exhibit F to Ordinance No. 2025-014
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
designation of certain
2024-003
2-21-24/5-21-24
23.01.010, 5.8
property from Surface Mining
(SM) to Rural Residential
Exception Area (RREA);
Modifying Goal 5 Mineral and
Aggregate Inventory
10-02-24/ 12-31-
Repeal and Replacement of
2024-007
24
23.01(A)(repealed)
2030 Comprehensive Plan
(superseded by
23.01(BK) (added)
with 2040 Comprehensive
Ord. 2025-007)
Plan
Comprehensive Plan Map
10-16-24/01-14-
Designation for Certain
2024-010
25
23.01.010
Property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Residential
Exception Area (RREA)
Comprehensive Plan Map
1 1-18-24/02-17-
Designation for Certain
2024-01 1
25
23.01.010
Property from Agriculture
(AG) to Redmond Urban
Growth Area (RUGA)
Comprehensive Plan Map
Designation for Certain
2024-012
1-8-25/4-8-25
23.01.010
Property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Residential
Exception Area (RREA)
Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Map Amendment
2025-001
2-5-25/2-5-25
23.01.010
updating the Greater Sage -
Grouse Area Combining
Zone boundary.
Comprehensive Plan
2025-003
4-2-25/7-1-25
23.01.010
Designation for Certain
Property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Industrial (RI)
12 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Exhibit F to Ordinance No. 2025-014
Comprehensive Plan Map
Designation for Certain
2025-010
6-25-25/9-23-25
23.01.010
Property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Residential
Exception Area (RREA)
2025-007
08-27-25/ 1 1-25-
23.01(BU)
Amendments to
25
Comprehensive Plan
resulting from Deschutes
County 2040 Update
process.
2025-014
10-06-2025/ 10-
23.01.010
Comprehensive Plan Map
Designation for Certain
06-2025
Property from Forest (F) to
Rural Residential Exception
Area (RREA)
13 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
SECOND ALTERNATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
File Numbers: 247-24-000839-PA, 840-ZC
Owner/Applicant: McKenzie Meadow Village LLC
Attorney(s) for
Applicant: Christopher P. Koback
Hathaway Larson LLP
1125 NW Couch Street, Suite 550
Portland, OR 97209
937 NW Newport Avenue, Suite 220
Bend, OR 97703
(541) 585-1088
chris(d,.' hathawaylarson.com
Staff Planner: Haleigh King, Senior Planner
Halei.gh.king,�kdeschutes.org, 541-383-6710
Application: Request for approval of an application to change the comprehensive plan
designation for the subject property, totaling approximately 58 acres, from
Forest to Rural Residential Exception Area ("RREA) and to change the
zoning of the property from Forest-2 ("F-2") to Multiple -Use Agricultural-
10 ("MUA"). The applicant is also requesting a goal exception to Statewide
Planning Goal 4.
Subject Property: Map/Tax Lot: Situs Address:
1510050001200 69095 McKinney Ranch Rd., Sisters, OR 97759
1510050001202 69055 McKinney Ranch Rd., Sisters, OR 97759
1510050001203 69050 McKinney Ranch Rd., Sisters, OR 97759
1510050001205 None
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
A. Hearings Officer's Recommendation: The Hearings Officer's recommendation dated
June 25, 2025, adopted as Exhibit H of this ordinance, is hereby incorporated as part of this
decision, including any and all interpretations of the County's code and comprehensive
Plan and modified as follows:
1. 1990 Subdivision
In its report to the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners ("Board"), staff presented
a 1990 subdivision plat that divided the subject property into four lots and a private road
tract. The Hearings Officer did not address the 1990 subdivision plat in his
Page 1 . Second Alternative Findings and Conclusions of Law
File Nos. 247-24-000839-PA, 840-ZC
Document No. 2025-941
recommendation. The Board finds the subdivision plat significant to the current
application. First, the subdivision plat indicates that as early as 1990, the owners and the
County anticipated future development of the property. The creation of four legal lots and
a road tract to provide access to each lot indicates that the owner intended future
development on each lot and the County approved the plat with knowledge of the owner's
intention. In fact, Pacel 4 on the 1990 subdivision plat was subsequently annexed into the
City of Sisters and developed into a residential subdivision at city densities. Second, the
remaining three lots created from the 1990 plat are three lots of record, each of which are
eligible for a conditional use dwelling. The parcelization of the property and creation of
the road tract are additional facts that support approving an exception to Goal 4.
B. Procedural History: The County's land use Hearings Officer conducted the initial
evidentiary hearing regarding McKenzie Meadow Village LLC's ("MMV")
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change applications on April 7, 2025, and
recommended that the Board approve the applications in a June 25, 2025 decision. The
Board conducted a de novo land use hearing on August 6, 2025. The Board closed the
hearing and the written record and deliberated on August 6, 2025, voting to approve the
application subject to further deliberations upon receiving and reviewing alternative
"decision documents" to be prepared by the applicant. Consistent with Commissioner
comments, one alternative is to include conditions related to wildlife corridors, enhanced
riparian buffer, and protection of the scenic resources in the northeast corner of the subject
property. The "First Alternative Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law" includes such
conditions of approval.
C. Deschutes County Land Use regulations: The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
and Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code have been acknowledged by the Oregon Land
Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) as being in compliance with each
statewide planning goal, including Goal 14. The County amended its Comprehensive Plan
in 2016 to provide that Rural Residential Exception Area Plan and its related MUA-10 and
RR-10 zones should be applied to non -resource lands. This Plan amendment has also been
acknowledged by LCDC, which means that the RREA plan designation and its related
zoning districts, when applied to non -resource land such as the subject property, do not
result in a violation of Goal 14.
In the event of conflict, the findings in this decision control.
II. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
In addition to adopting the Hearings Officer's findings, the Board provides the following
supplemental findings to address the arguments and facts presented to it during the August 6, 2025
de novo hearing on this application, and to support its decision to approve the MMV applications:
1. Goal 4 Exception
Page 2 Second Alternative Findings and Conclusions of Law
File Nos. 247-24-000839-PA, 840-ZC
Document No. 2025-941
The MMV property is not suitable for commercial forestry operations. The
Board finds the professional report by Gary Kitzrow is fundamentally sound and
persuasive. The Board finds that another purpose of Goal 4 is the conservation of soil,
air, water, natural resources, and wildlife habitat, and that land designated as
forestland provides opportunities for such preservation. However, the Board finds that
there are reasons that retaining a forestland designation and F-2 zoning of the subject
property is not necessary to meet those purposes. As to soil conservation, the
Board f i n d s that the soil on the site is low value and limits tree growth. Rezoning
the property to MUA-10 will not affect the quality of soil. As to natural resources,
including Trout Creek and the vegetation along its corridor, the Board finds the
evidence in the record that uses allowed under the F-2 zone, specifically forestry
operations, provide less protection to natural resources than uses allowed in the MUA-
10 zone when property in the MUA-10 zone is developed consistent with County
development standards to be persuasive. The Board notes that in the MUA-10 zone
all structures must be located at least 100 feet from each side of a stream. The
applicant agreed on the record that when any development of the MMV property is
proposed, it will create and record a document restricting development on those
portions of the property that are 100 feet from each side of the edges of Trout Creek.
The MUA-10 zone is a transition zone; among the listed purposes for the zone is to allow
for an orderly transition from rural uses to urban uses. There is no MUA-10 property close
to the Sisters' city limits that may provide opportunities for an orderly transition from rural
to urban uses.
The MMV property is appropriate for MUA-10 zoning and rezoning is consistent with the
purpose of that zone. The Property is adjacent to the Sisters' urban growth boundary
("UGB"). Although the property is not served by public streets and utilities, many public
facilities, including streets, water, sewer, and electricity are stubbed to the southern
boundary of the MMV property. The MMV property connects in one corner to the Sisters'
School District property where the high school campus is located. It is within safe,
convenient walking and biking distance to downtown, medical services, and other
amenities. Thus, the Board agrees that there is a need for MUA-10 zoning close to the
Sisters' current UGB and that it is appropriate to rezone the subject property to provide for
that transitional zoning.
Other exception lands cannot reasonably accommodate new MUA-10 uses. Other
properties in the area are designated RREA and are predominantly zoned RR-10. Maps
presented in the proceedings illustrate that those exception lands cannot reasonably
accommodate new MUA-10 development. Most of the other RREA land consists of
smaller parcels between two and 10 acres. Those properties have been developed with
valuable improvements and encumbered with CC&Rs that require residential development
and restrict further division. Thus, those properties cannot reasonably be developed with
many MUA-10 uses. Further, it cannot reasonably be developed to add rural housing
because of existing improvements that would have to be removed and the recorded
restrictions prohibiting further division. It is not reasonable to assume that owners of such
Page 3 -- Second Alternative Findings and Conclusions of Law
File Nos. 247-24-000839-PA, 840-ZC
Document No. 2025-941
properties will agree to assemble their parcels, remove valuable improvements, and obtain
the necessary votes to amend or remove the private restrictions, all of which would be
required before new MUA-10 development could be proposed.
2. Goal 5 Natural Resources
Trout Creek is an ephemeral stream with intermittent water flow. It is designated in the
County's Goal 5 resource inventory as a protected resource. From the Trout Creek
Conservation Tract, the basin runs east and southeast through the MMV property. As noted
above, the Board finds that this resource can be equally or better protected under the
development standards for the MUA-10 zone. All structures must be setback at least 100
feet on each side of the creek creating a wide protective buffer. The Board notes that in
addition to the DCC code provision that requires all structures in the MUA-10 zone to be
setback 100 feet from any stream, the applicant affirmed in an open meeting that it is
committed to placing Trout Creek and the associated a riparian buffer into a separate 200
foot -wide tract designated for conservation and protection of the resources within it.
Highway 20 Scenic Corridor extends into part of the MMV property. The scenic corridor
measures .25 miles from the centerline of the highway. The northeast corner of the MMV
property is approximately .17 miles from the highway centerline as the applicant measured
it using the measuring tool on DIAL. The scenic corridor boundary cuts diagonally across
that corner of the property. However, the Board finds that the intervening area between
Highway 20 and the subject property is forested with a healthy growth of Ponderosa Pine
trees on land owned by the United States. That mature forest provides a visual buffer such
that it is unlikely that any development of the,MMV property zoned MUA-10 will be
visible from the highway. Notwithstanding the existing forest buffer between the highway
and the northeast corner of the subject property that is within the LM overlay, the applicant
proposed to create a 100-foot-wide wildlife corridor along the entire northern boundary of
the subject property. That corridor will effectively create a no -build area where the LM
overlay exists over the northeast corner of the subject property. A graphic description of
corridors that the Board finds appropriate is below:
Page 4 -- Second Alternative Findings and Conclusions of Law
File Nos. 247-24-000839-PA, 840-ZC
Document No. 2025-941
100ft W"We coondor
25ft Tollgate Pump Station
Setback
200ft (at wKkst) Riparian
and Wildlife Coo idor
The Board finds that with the agreed upon conditions and application of the Landscape
Management standards in DCC Chapter 18.64, the riparian area will be protected, and
potential visibility of future development will be further mitigated.
3. Wildlife Migration
The subject property does not include any mapped or designated wildlife corridors.
However, the Board acknowledges that the Sisters School District conservation tract is
immediately west of the MMV property and forestland exists to the east. Retaining the
ability for wildlife to migrate through the site is desirable. The Board finds that Trout
Creek traverses the subject property from the School District conservation tract to the
property east of the subject property. The Board finds that the development standards for
the MUA-10 zone and in particular the restriction on developing structures within 100 feet
of either side of Trout Creek will effectively create a corridor for wildlife to migrate across
the site from the School District's conservation tract to the US forest land located east of
the subject site creates some desired wildlife connection. In addition, the parcel size
standards in the MUA-10 zone will allow low intensity rural development that preserves
sufficient open space to facilitate wildlife migration between the School District
Conservation tract and the National Forest north and east of the subject site. However, the
Board finds that the additional wildlife corridor located generally along the northern
portion of the subject property will enhance wildlife connectivity over the subject property.
As noted above, the applicant agreed to a condition requiring an additional wildlife
corridor.
4. Goal 14
Page 5 — Second Alternative Findings and Conclusions of Law
File Nos. 247-24-000839-PA, 840-ZC
Document No. 2025-941
As discussed above, it is the acknowledged Comprehensive Plan, amended in 2016 to
create the RREA designation and its associated MUA-10 and RR-10 zones, was
acknowledged by LCDC as being consistent with all Statewide Planning Goals, including
Goal 14. This confirms that uses allowed within those zones are all rural uses and not
urban uses. The Comprehensive Plan states that "[e]ach Comprehensive Plan map
designation provides the land use framework for establishing zoning districts. Zoning
defines in detail what uses allowed for each area." DCCP Section 1.3. Rural Residential
Exception Areas "provide opportunities for rural residential living outside urban growth
boundaries and unincorporated communities ..." DCCP Section 1.3. DCCP Table 1.3.3
states that the RR-10 and MUA-10 zones are the associated zoning codes for the RREA
plan designation.
The determination that the RREA plan designation and RR-10 and MUA-10 zoning
districts should apply to exception lands was made when the County amended the DCCP
in 2016. (Ordinance 2016-005). The ordinance was acknowledged by DLCD as
complying with the Statewide Planning Goals. Thus, the allowable lot sizes and uses under
the RREA plan designation and in the RR-10 and MUA-10 zones comply with Goal 14.
The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan map conforms to the applicable
DCCP provisions.
The purpose statement for the MUA-10 zone states that it is intended to preserve the rural
character of various areas of the County while permitting development consistent with that
character and the capacity of the natural resources of the area. When DCC Chapter 18.32
is read in context with that purpose statement, the only plausible interpretation is that all
uses allowed in the MUA-10 zone are rural uses. Thus, the application does not provide
any basis for the County to revisit whether the RREA designation, or the RR- lO/MUA-10
zones violate Goal 14 by allowing urban development. No individual analysis of whether
specific allowable uses in the MUA-10 zone violate Goal 14 is required.
Curry County Analysis
As stated above, the Board finds that an analysis of Goal 14 applying the factors set forth
in 1000 Friends of Oregon v LCDC (Curry County), 301 Or 447 (1986) is not required.
The MUA-10 zone allows development consistent with the rural character of the area and
does not authorize urban uses. However, the Board makes the following alternative
findings for a complete record on the urbanization issue.
Overview
The court in Curry County acknowledged that there is no established definition of rural use
and urban uses. The court discussed a few factors to consider in evaluating whether
development allowed is rural or urban including the density, dependence on urban services
and proximity to the urban area. None of the factors were deemed to be determinative and
all must be applied in the context of the individual situation presented. The court's
discussion in that case noted that parcel sizes of 10 acres are clearly rural and postulated
Page 6 - Second Alternative Findings and Conclusions of Law
File Nos. 247-24-000839-PA, 840-ZC
Document No. 2025-941
that parcels at .5 acres would certainly create an urban density. Later, the court emphasized
that the urban services most relevant are water and sewer. In other words, if development
on rural land has or depends on public water and sewer, that factor is more indicative of
urban development. In contrast, the court noted that rural services are generally considered
to include protective services (police and fire), electrical power, communication facilities,
and schools.
The Board applies the Curry County factors to the subject application as follows:
Density
Rezoning the subject property to MUA-10 will not lead to development at urban densities.
The minimum parcel size in the MUA-10 zone is 10 acres. The current zoning code allows
smaller parcels for cluster developments and planned developments. In Central Oregon
Land Watch a Deschutes County (Destiny Court), LUBA No. 2025-015, LUBA remanded
a plan amendment and rezone approval for the Board to address a perceived inconsistency
between the DCCP that limits parcel size in the MUA-10 zone to 10 acres and the
provisions in the zoning code that allow smaller parcels under cluster and planned
development provisions. The Board is currently in the process of updating the DCCP to
address the Destiny Court remand. However, anticipating that cluster and planned
development options remain in the zoning code and allow creation of parcels that average
10 acres in size when taking into consideration corresponding open space, such
development will not result in urban density.
The smallest allowable parcel in the MUA-10 zone, if property is developed pursuant to a
cluster development application and is within a mile of a UGB, is five acres or the
equivalent density. In Curry County, 1000 Friends asserted that densities greater than one
dwelling per three acres are urban. That argument did not account for provisions requiring
large undeveloped open space either. The Board finds that five -acre parcels along with
65% undeveloped open space do not result in urban density. Under either the County's
cluster development or planned development standards, the overall density will remain
consistent with what is allowed on rural land as rural uses. By way of contrast, the lowest
density allowed in the City of Bend is 1.1 units per acre in the Residential Low (RL) zone.
There is a significant difference between one dwelling per acre and one dwelling per five
acres. The Board notes that, to satisfy minimum urban density requirements, no city is
going to allow, much less require, that 65% of otherwise unrestricted and unconstrained
property be left open and undeveloped. Such a requirement would not be consistent with
creating urban density. Even under the cluster development and planned development
provisions, while smaller parcels may be approved, the overall density remains consistent
with the rural character of the area.
Extension of Urban Services
The Board rejects the notion that rezoning the subject parcel to MUA-10 will lead to the
extension of urban facilities to the area. The court in Curry County emphasized that the
Page 7 — Second Alternative Findings and Conclusions of Law
File Nos. 247-24-000839-PA, 840-ZC
Document No. 2025-941
services that most strongly indicate urban levels of development are public water and
sewer. The Board agrees and notes that the County has permitted significant residential
development on other rural exception lands as rural development. That development is
served by electricity and communications services but has no public water or sewer.
Private wells and septic systems are commonplace in rural residential living. Sisters has
no obligation to extend public services; in some cases, the City is prohibited from providing
extraterritorial service to rural lands. Any future development on the property under MUA-
10 zoning will not be served by public water and sewer. Electricity already extends onto
the property as evidenced by the approved plat from 1990. For fire and public safety, the
area is served by the Camp Sherman Fire District and Deschutes County Sheriff's office,
both of which serve rural areas. That coverage will remain unchanged.
Proximity to Urban Growth Boundaries
The court in Curry County discussed this factor in the context of that County's creation of
large exception area and not as it would or should apply to a specific property for which
rezoning is requested. While the court in Curry County addressed arguments that rezoning
resource land near urban areas could attract people from the urban areas to rural areas, that
discussion did not involve the Deschutes County MUA-10 zone which has as one of its
purposes to promote an orderly transition from rural uses to urban uses. This purpose
statement confines that the MUA-10 zone allows rural uses while at the same time
facilitates a transition of from rural to urban uses. This is a significant distinction because
it would not be reasonable to apply a zone with the purpose of providing for a transition
from rural to urban uses, to property far removed from the UGB. The Board finds that
MUA-10 zoning of property somewhat near a UGB is appropriate and not inconsistent with
Goal 14.
The Board finds that rezoning the subject property to MUA-10 will not be a "magnet"
pulling rural residents into the urban area and urban residents to the rural area. That
position does not reflect reality of rural zoning near a small town like Sisters. Currently,
there are few, if any, resources available to rural residents that are located in rural areas.
The schools that rural residents around Sisters attend are in the city. The medical services
and major grocery stores are in urban areas. Rural residents already come in large numbers
to urban areas for goods and services because they have no other options to get the goods
and services they require from rural areas.
Similarly, the rural area has most of the recreational opportunities that are enjoyed by urban
residents. There are other uses such as horse stables and farm stands that already attract
urban residents to the rural area. The Board finds that Central Oregon Land Watch's
assertion is not supported by any evidence.
No other participant in these proceedings asserted that other uses permitted outright or
conditionally in the MUA-10 zone are urban in nature. The Board finds that they are not.
Because the other non-residential uses cannot fall under cluster development standards or
Page 8 — Second Alternative Findings and Conclusions of Law
File Nos. 247-24-000839-PA, 840-ZC
Document No. 2025-941
planned development standards, the parcel size cannot be reduced. As noted, they will not
be served by public water or sewer.
S. Other Issues
The Board rejects the argument from Central Oregon Land Watch that for the Board to
approve an exception to Goal 4, the applicant must present a specific proposed use of the
subject property. The Board agrees that ORS 197.732 defines an exception to a statewide
planning goal as "a comprehensive plan provision," including an amendment to an
acknowledged comprehensive plan that: (A) is applicable to specific properties or
situations and does not establish a planning or policy of general applicability; (B) does not
comply with some of all goal requirements applicable to the subject properties or situations;
and (C) Complies with standards under subsection (2) of this section.
The plain language in the statute does not require an applicant to propose a specific use or
development. Central Oregon LandWatch did not provide any text in the applicable
regulations that varied the definition in ORS 197.732. A specific use is not required for an
applicant to seek a goal exception.
III. RECOMPROCEDURAL ARGUMENTS
The applicant requested that the Board not keep the record open for written testimony and
argument. The Board agrees that because the August 6, 2025, hearing was not the initial
evidentiary hearing, it was not required to keep the record open under ORS 197.797(6).
IV. DECISION
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Board of County
Commissioners hereby approves applicant's applications for a DCCP amendment to redesignate
the subject property from forestland to RREA and a corresponding zone map amendment to change
the zoning of the property from F-2 to MUA-10 with the following conditions proposed by the
applicant:
1. That for any future development under the MUA-10 zone that is reviewed under the
jurisdiction of Deschutes County an applicant shall create a conservation tract that extends
100 feet on either side of the ordinary high-water mark ofTrout Creek and that no structures
or fences shall be constructed within that tract. Recreational paths and other passive
recreational uses may be allowed;
2. That for any future development under the MUA-10 zone that is reviewed under the
jurisdiction of Deschutes County an applicant shall create a 100-foot-wide wildlife corridor
within a tract extending from the Trout Creek Conservation Tract along the northern
boundary of the subject property, and that no permanent structures or fences shall be
allowed within that corridor.
Page 9 - Second Alternative Findings and Conclusions of Law
File Nos. 247-24-000839-PA, 840-ZC
Document No. 2025-941
Dated this � of 2025
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
STATE OF OREGON, County of Deschutes
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
ANTHONY DEBONE, Chair
PATTI ADAIR, Vice -Chair
PHIL CHANG, Commissioner
) ss.
Before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared ANTHONY DEEONE, PATTI ADAIR,
PHIL CHANG, , the above -named Board of County Commissioners of Deschutes County, Oregon
and acknowledged the foregoing instrument on behalf of Deschutes County, Oregon.
DATED this I I day of , 2025
Notary Public, State of Oregon
OFFJCLU. STAMP
BRENDA FRR8NOLD
NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON
COMMISSION NO. 1032M7
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JANUARY 3.2027
Page 10 — Second Alternative Findings and Conclusions of Law
File Nos. 247-24-000839-PA, 840-ZC
Document No. 2025-941
Mailing Date:
Wednesday, June 25, 2025
RECOMMENDATION AND FINDINGS OF
THE DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER
FILE NUMBERS:
HEARING DATE:
HEARING LOCATION:
APPLICANT/OWNER:
SUBJECT PROPERTIES:
247-24-000839-PA / 247-24-000840-ZC
April 7, 2025 1:00 p.m.
Videoconference and
Barnes & Sawyer Rooms
Deschutes Services Center
1300 NW Wall Street
Bend, OR 97708
McKenzie Meadow Village LLC
Map and Tax Lots:
1510050001200
1510050001202
1510050001203
1510050001205
Situs Addresses:
69095 McKinney Ranch Rd., Sisters, OR 97759
69055 McKinney Ranch Rd., Sisters, OR 97759
69050 McKinney Ranch Rd., Sisters, OR 97759
No Situs Address
REQUEST: The Applicant requests approval of a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to change the designation of the Subject Properties
from Forest to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA) and a
corresponding Zone Change to rezone the Subject Properties from
Forest Use 2 (F-2) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10). The
Applicant also requests a "reasons exception" to Statewide
Planning Goal 4.
HEARINGS OFFICER: Tommy A. Brooks
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: The Hearings Officer finds that the record is sufficient to
support the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Goal 4 Exception.
Page I 1
L APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA
Deschutes County Code (DCC)
Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance:
Chapter 18.04, Title, Purpose, and Definitions
Chapter 18.32, Multiple Use Agricultural Zone (MUA10)
Chapter 18.40, Forest Use Zone (F2)
Chapter 18.80, Airport Safety Combining Zone (AS)
Chapter 18.84, Landscape Management Combining Zone (LM)
Chapter 18.136, Amendments
Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) - Chapter 660
Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS)
Statewide Planning Goals
II. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL FINDINGS
A. Nature of Proceeding
This matter comes before the Hearings Officer as a request for approval of a Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment ("Plan Amendment") to change the designation of the Subject Properties from Forest to Rural
Residential Exception Area ("RREA"). The Applicant also requests approval of a corresponding Zoning
Map Amendment ("Zone Change") to change the zoning of the Subject Properties from Forest Use 2 (F-
2) to Multiple Use Agriculture (MUA-10). As presented by the Applicant, the request also seeks an
exception to Statewide Planning Goal 4 ("Goal 4 Exception").
The Application requests a Plan Amendment, which is ultimately a decision for the County's Board of
Commissioners ("County Board"). Several applicable criteria require a weighing of policy choices, and
the record before the County Board may be different than the current record. This Recommendation
therefore determines if the Applicant has met its burden of proof in a manner that would support the
County Board's approval of the Application based on the current record.
B. Notices, Hearing, Record Materials
The Applicant initially filed the Application on December 24, 2024, and provided supplemental materials
throughout this proceeding.
Page 12
On January 3, 2025, staff in the County's Community Development Department ("Staff") mailed a Notice
of Application identifying the standards and criteria governing the review of the Application and seeking
public comment on the Application. On March 13, 2025, Staff mailed a Notice of Public Hearing
("Hearing Notice") to agencies, interested persons, and all property owners within 750 feet of the Subject
Properties, announcing a public hearing to be held on April 7, 2025. The Hearing Notice was also
published in the Bend Bulletin on Sunday, March 16, 2025. Notice of the Hearing was also submitted to
the Department of Land Conservation and Development ("DLCD").
Pursuant to the Hearing Notice, I presided over the Hearing as the Hearings Officer on April 7, 2025,
opening the Hearing at 1:00 p.m. The Hearing was held in person and via videoconference, with the
Hearings Officer appearing remotely. At the beginning of the Hearing, I provided an overview of the
quasi-judicial process and instructed participants to direct comments to the approval criteria and standards,
and to raise any issues a participant wanted to preserve for appeal if necessary. I stated I had no ex parte
contacts to disclose or bias to declare. I invited but received no objections to the County's jurisdiction
over the matter or to my participation as the Hearings Officer.
The Hearing concluded at approximately 3:04 p.m. Prior to the conclusion of the Hearing, I announced
that the written record would remain open as follows: (1) any participant could submit additional materials
until April 21, 2025 ("Open Record Period"); (2) any participant could submit rebuttal materials (evidence
or argument) until May 5, 2025 ("Rebuttal Period"); and (3) the Applicant could submit a final legal
argument, but no additional evidence, until May 12, 2025. Staff provided further instruction to
participants, noting that all post -Hearing submittals needed to be received by the County by 4:00 p.m. on
the applicable due date. No participant objected to the post -hearing procedures.
Various participants submitted post -Hearing materials within the time limits described above, and no
objections were made to any of those submittals. The record therefore includes all materials submitted to
the County as reflected on the County's website for this matter.
C. Review Period
Because the Application includes a request for the Plan Amendment, the 150-day review period set forth
in ORS 215.427(1) is not applicable.' The Staff Report also concludes that the 150-day review period is
not applicable by virtue of Deschutes County Code ("DCC" or "Code") 22.20.040(D). No participant to
the proceeding disputes that conclusion.
III. SUBSTANTIVE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Staff Report
On March 28, 2025, Staff issued a report setting forth the applicable criteria and presenting evidence in
the record at that time ("Staff Report").
' ORS 215.427(7).
Page 13
The Staff Report, although it expresses agreement with the Applicant in some places, does not make a
final recommendation. Instead, the Staff Report asks the Hearings Officer to determine if the Applicant
has met the burden of proof necessary to justify the Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Goal 4 Exception.
B. Preliminary Discussion
In order to identify and better address the applicable criteria, it is necessary both to discuss the Applicant's
stated purpose of the Application and to describe what the Applicant is not requesting.
The Applicant candidly presented its long-term goal for the use of the Subject Properties, which is to make
those properties more available for eventual consideration by the City of Sisters ("City") to be included
in its urban growth boundary ("UGB"). As explained by the Applicant and acknowledged by other
participants, the City is in the process of expanding its UGB. Under state law, the City is to give certain
properties (e.g. exception areas) higher priority than other properties (e.g. resource lands) when deciding
which areas to bring into its UGB.
The Applicant's stated long-term goal understandably prompted a wide variety of comments relating to
whether and how the Subject Properties should be brought into the City's UGB or otherwise be developed
with urban uses. I agree with the Applicant, however, that these comments are largely not relevant to the
Application. The decision to include the Subject Properties in the City's UGB is not part of the request in
the Application. That decision belongs to the City and will be governed by other standards and criteria.
Further, the requested Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Goal 4 Exception, if approved, may give the
City more options for including the Subject Properties within its UGB, but as DLCD noted in its
comments, they are not necessary, and there is a process in state administrative rules that could allow the
City to consider the Subject Properties for inclusion in its UGB even with their current designations under
the County's Comprehensive Plan ("Plan").
The Applicant is not requesting, through this Application, that the Subject Properties actually be included
in the City's UGB, nor is the Applicant requesting approval of any specific type of development if the
Zone Change is approved. The findings below therefore address only the specific requests in the
Application as a stand-alone application made to the County, regardless of what impact the outcome may
or may not have on the City's UGB process. Those specific requests are: (1) the Goal 4 Exception, based
on the "reasons exception" component of ORS 197.732; (2) the Plan Amendment; and (3) the Zone
Change.
C. Findings for Specific Requests in the Application
1. Goal 4 Exception
Pursuant to ORS 197.175(2), if the County amends its Plan, it must do so in compliance with Statewide
Planning Goals (each a "Goal" and, together, the "Goals"). Because the Plan has been acknowledged, the
requested Plan Amendment must adhere to the procedures for a post -acknowledged plan amendment
("PAPA") set forth in state statutes and rules. The Applicant does not assert that the requested Plan
Amendment is in compliance with Goal 4-Forest Lands. Rather, the Applicant requests an "exception" to
Page 14
that Goal. ORS 197.732 and its implementing rules govern the process and standards for obtaining such a
"Goal Exception".
Although state statutes allow different types of Goal Exceptions, the Applicant has "confirmed that the
application seeks a plan amendment and zone change using a Goal 4 reasons exception under ORS
197.732." The "Reasons Exception" is a reference to ORS 197.732(2)(c), which allows a Goal Exception
if the following standards are met, each of which are addressed below:
(A) Reasons justify why the state policy embodied in the applicable
goals should not apply;
(B) Areas that do not require a new exception cannot reasonably
accommodate the use;
(C) The long term environmental, economic, social and energy
consequences resulting from the use at the proposed site with
measures designed to reduce adverse impacts are not significantly
more adverse than would typically result from the same proposal
being located in areas requiring a goal exception other than the
proposed site; and
(D) The proposed uses are compatible with other adjacent uses or will
be so rendered through measures designed to reduce adverse
impacts.
ORS 197.732(2 (c� )(A)
With respect to the reasons that the state policy embodied in Goal 4 should not apply, the Applicant's
argument is best summarized in its Final Legal Argument. In that submittal, the Applicant identifies the
policy embodied in Goal 4 in part as "to preserve forest land for forest related use and timber production,"
along with conserving soil, air, water quality and providing for fish and wildlife resources, recreational
and agricultural opportunities appropriate in a forest environment. According to the Applicant, these
policies "in most or all respects are advanced better under the proposed [MUA-10] zoning." The Applicant
has also asserted that there is a specific need for MUA-10 zoning near the City of Sisters to provide a
better transitional zone between urban and rural development. I infer from the Applicant's arguments that
a reason for the Goal Exception is to establish this transitional zone on the Subject Properties, which the
Applicant asserts is more beneficial than keeping Goal 4 protections in place on a property that is not
suitable for Goal 4 uses.
In support of its argument, the Applicant relies on evidence such as a soils report that confirms the Subject
Properties are not suitable for commercial forestry and, therefore, that preserving the property for forestry
uses is not appropriate. The Applicant also cites to certain natural area protections imposed through the
MUA-10 zone, such as a stream setback requirement, that it asserts will be more protective of Trout Creek
(an identified Goal 5 resource) than the regulations of the F-2 zone.
A major issue raised in this proceeding is whether the Applicant has sufficiently established the "reasons"
Goal 4 should not apply to the Subject Properties. The arguments in opposition to the Application center
around OAR 660-004-0020 and OAR 660-004-0022, which implement ORS 197.732, and which
Page 15
participants in this proceeding say must be satisfied. The Applicant asserts that OAR 660-004-0022 is not
applicable at all because it "applies only to requests for an exception to allow specifically identified uses."
The Applicant argues that it is proposing a broad range of uses (anything allowed in the MUA-10 zone),
which do not fit neatly into any of the specific uses in the rule. The Applicant's primary argument is that
only OAR 660-004-0020 is applicable.
Contrary to the Applicant's argument, OAR 660-004-0022 appears to apply to all reasons exceptions,
regardless of the specific use proposed. As described by the Land Use Board of Appeals ("LUBA"): "OAR
660-004-0022 sets out the types of `reasons' that can justify exceptions to various specific goals. For uses
not specifically addressed in OAR 660-004-0022, OAR 660-004-0022(1) sets out a `catch-all' provision
that lists a non-exclusive set of reasons sufficient to justify an exception."2
OAR 660-004-0022 confirms that all Reasons Exceptions must comply with OAR 660-004-0022. The
lead-in language of that rule states "[i]f a jurisdiction determines there are reasons consistent with OAR
660-004-0022 to use resource lands for uses not allowed by the applicable Goal or to allow public facilities
or services not allowed by the applicable Goal, the justification shall be set forth in the comprehensive
plan as an exception." In other words, before applying OAR 660-004-0020, the Applicant must first
establish the reasons that justify a Goal Exception by meeting the criteria set forth in OAR 660-004-0022.
If those reasons can be established, the Applicant must then show compliance with the other provisions
of OAR 660-004-0020. For some uses, OAR 660-004-0022 sets forth the types of reasons that may be
relied on, beginning with subsection (2) of that rule. For all other uses, the Applicant can rely on the catch-
all provision of OAR 660-004-0022(1).
Participant Central Oregon LandWatch ("COLW") raises a more specific issue in this regard, asserting
that the Applicant must show compliance with OAR 660-004-0022(2), which sets forth the reasons on
which a Goal Exception can be based when approving "Rural Residential Development.":
(2) Rural Residential Development: For rural residential development the
reasons cannot be based on market demand for housing except as provided
for in this section of this rule, assumed continuation of past urban and rural
population distributions, or housing types and cost characteristics. A county
must show why, based on the economic analysis in the plan, there are
reasons for the type and density of housing planned that require this
particular location on resource lands. A jurisdiction could justify an
exception to allow residential development on resource land outside an
urban growth boundary by determining that the rural location of the
proposed residential development is necessary to satisfy the market demand
for housing generated by existing or planned rural industrial, commercial,
or other economic activity in the area.
2 VinCEP v. Yamhill County, 53 Or LUBA 514 (2007).
Page 16
COLW's argument is that OAR 660-004-0022(2) is triggered because the MUA-10 zone is a rural
residential zone, which the Applicant disputes.'
It should be noted that the different reasons justifying a Goal Exception set forth in OAR 660-004-0022
are not mutually exclusive. That is, an applicant can seek to justify a Goal Exception for a specific use
listed in the rule and, alternatively, seek to justify the Goal Exception based on the catch-all provision of
OAR 660-004-0022(1).4 In the 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Jackson County case, a county approved a Goal
Exception under OAR 660-004-0022(3) and OAR 660-004-0022(1) for a use that could be described as a
rural industrial use. Although LUBA reversed the county's approval, it analyzed the Goal Exception under
both rules, stating "we see nothing in the rule that would preclude the county from attempting to justify a
reasons exception for an indisputable rural industrial use using the standards set out in the `catch-all'
provision at OAR 660-004-0022(1), in lieu of the non-exclusive set of reasons listed in OAR 660-004-
0022(3).
Based on the 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Jackson County case, I find that the Applicant can attempt to
show compliance with either OAR 660-004-0022(1) or any other provision of OAR 660-004-0022 as the
basis for the Reasons Exception. While the Applicant responds to COLW's argument by presenting
alternative arguments for why OAR 660-004-0022(2) is satisfied, the Applicant notes that its proposal is
to rezone the Subject Properties to the MUA-10 zone without regard to specific uses. This means that, if
approved, while some rural residential development would be allowed, other non-residential uses would
also be allowed. I agree with the Applicant that it makes little sense to proceed under a rule that applies
only to residential uses. Even if there are reasons for the Goal Exception to justify the rural residential
portion of the proposal, there must still be a basis to justify the non -rural residential components. I
therefore find that the Goal 4 Exception can be approved only if the Applicant shows compliance with
OAR 660-004-0022(1), the catch-all provision of the rule that would apply to all uses allowed in the
MUA-10 zone.
One of the difficulties in applying OAR 660-004-0022(1) to this Application is that the Applicant has not
directly addressed that criterion. As noted above, the Applicant asserts that this rule does not apply at all.
That is not detrimental to the Application, however, as the plain text of OAR 660-004-0022(l) states that
"the reasons shall justify why the state policy embodied in the applicable goals should not apply," which
is simply a restatement of ORS 197.732(2)(c)(A), a criterion the Applicant does address.
Another difficulty in applying OAR 660-004-0022(1) to this Application is that it is not immediately clear
if the specific provisions of that subsection of the rule require the Applicant to address all of the language
in that subsection. That is, under this part of the rule, an applicant can justify a Goal Exception by showing
3 COLW also asserts that OAR 660-004-0022 requires the Applicant to comply with OAR 660-004-0040
to the extent the Applicant seeks to justify the establishment of new urban development on undeveloped
rural land. I find that this assertion is not relevant because the Applicant does not propose urban
development in this Application even though that is the Applicant's long-term desire for use of the
Subject Properties. As explained in other findings, the MUA-10 zone is a rural zone allowing rural uses.
4 See, e.g., 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Jackson County, Or LUBA _ (LUBA No. 2071-066, Oct. 27,
2017).
Page 17
"a demonstrated need for the proposed use or activity, based on one or more of the requirements of Goals
3 to 19" (a "Need" component), together with a demonstration that either: (a) that the proposed use or
activity requires a location near a resource available only at the proposed exception site; or (b) the
proposed use or activity has special features or qualities that necessitate its location on or near the proposed
exception site (a "Location" component). The Applicant has not directly addressed that additional rule
language. But the rule language also says "[s]uch reasons include but are not limited to" a demonstrated
Need and Location. The question then, is if the Applicant can rely on other reasons to justify the Goal
Exception even if it does not base its reasons on the Need and Locational components of the rule.
No participant to this proceeding has offered any argument to help explain the meaning of the "include
but are not limited to" language. Nor does the case law appear to clarify that language, as most of the
cases addressing this rule analyze different issues. In the absence of such arguments and authority, I am
left with the plain language of the rule. Based on that language, I find that the Applicant can rely on other
reasons to justify the Goal Exception, as long as those reasons demonstrate why the state policy embodied
in Goal 4 should not apply. The use of "but are not limited to" in the rule implies that other reasons may
exist, and the specific reason set forth in the rule (based on Need and Location) is more of a safe harbor
that, if met, satisfies the rule. If other reasons could not be relied on, the "but are not limited to" language
would not be necessary.
Having reviewed the information provided by the Applicant and other participants, I find that the
Applicant has met its burden to show there are reasons why the state policy embodied in Goal 4 should
not apply to the Subject Properties. Most of the opposing comments in the record do not address Goal 4
Exception criteria. Those that do simply express the opinion that the Applicant's stated reasons for the
Goal Exception are "not sufficient." They do not, however, dispute with any particularity the Applicant's
assessment of the capability of the Subject Properties to support forest uses, or the Applicant's assertion
that other Goal 4 policies, like natural resource protections, can actually be enhanced by the MUA-10
zoning.
ORS 197.732(2)(c)(B)
This part of the statute requires a decision approving a Goal Exception to demonstrate that areas that do
not require a new Goal Exception cannot reasonably accommodate the use.
The Applicant acknowledges that this criterion is difficult to apply because no one specific use is being
proposed. By seeking to rezone the Subject Properties without specifying any limitation on which uses
are or are not allowed, the Applicant is proposing that all uses in the MUA-10 zone be allowed. More
specifically, however, the Applicant is proposing to allow those uses through the establishment of a
transitional zone adjacent to the City that allows a variety of rural uses, including housing. Looking at the
"proposed use" through that lens, ORS 197.732(2)(c)(B) requires a detennination of whether other areas
not requiring a Goal Exception could also be used to establish a transitional zone adjacent to the City of
Sisters to allow a variety of rural uses. According to the Applicant, they cannot.
As the Applicant notes, OAR 660-004-0020(2)(b) implements ORS 197.732(2)(c)(B). Under that rule, the
consideration of alternative sites for the proposed use can be done through a broad review of similar types
of areas. The rule specifically states "[s]ite specific comparisons are not required of a local government
Page 18
taking an exception unless another party to the local proceeding describes specific sites that can more
reasonably accommodate the proposed use." The Applicant's submittals include information showing that
the Applicant has assessed the ability of other areas to accommodate the rural uses allowed in the MUA-
10 zone. That information includes evidence that existing exception areas, like the RR-10 zone, do not
allow the same suite of uses as the MUA-10 zone, and that other areas are encumbered by restrictions
preventing certain types of development.
The Applicant's analysis is largely unchallenged by other participants. With the exception of COLW's
comments, opposing comments in the record do not specifically address ORS 197.732(2)(c)(B) or OAR
660-004-0020(2)(b). COLW's comments, however, state that this criterion is not met because "ample
areas that do not require a new exception can reasonably accommodate the proposed use of future urban
development in the City of Sisters." As explained above, the Applicant is not proposing urban
development with this Application, and COLW's comments do not address the rural uses proposed
generally, or the MUA-10 zone as a transitional zone near the City specifically.
Based on the foregoing and the materials currently in the record, I find that the Applicant has met its
burden to demonstrate that the proposed use (transitional zoning for the City of Sisters to allow a variety
of rural uses) cannot reasonably be accommodated in areas that do not require a new Goal Exception.
ORS 197.732(2(c� )(C)
This subsection of the statute requires an analysis of the long term environmental, economic, social and
energy ("ESEE") consequences resulting from the use compared to the ESEE consequences if the same
proposal were located in other areas that would also require a Goal Exception. By the plain language of
the statute, the ESEE consequences on the Subject Properties do not have to be lower than the ESEE
consequences on alternative sites, and they can even be greater; but they cannot be "significantly more
adverse". Similar to the prior portion of the statute, this statute's implementing rule — OAR 660-004-
0020(2)(c) — expressly states that "[a] detailed evaluation of specific alternative sites is not required unless
such sites are specifically described with facts to support the assertion that the sites have significantly
fewer adverse impacts during the local exceptions proceeding."
The Applicant presents an analysis of the ESEE consequences and asserts that those consequences are no
greater than, and in some cases less than, the ESEE consequences if the proposal were on other lands also
requiring a Goal Exception. For example, with respect to environmental consequences, the Applicant
argues that converting other forest land, which is capable of sustaining forest uses, would have higher
consequences because it would have greater impacts to tree canopy, wildlife habitat, and water and air
resources. With respect to social and economic consequences, the Applicant highlights items such as
impacts to jobs associated with the loss of farm or forest land if those lands were converted to MUA-10
zoning. With respect to energy, the Applicant relies on the proximity of the Subject Properties to other
development and asserts that the ability to serve those properties (e.g. providing electricity or
transportation) is less energy intensive.
The record contains a multitude of comments asserting negative ESEE consequences will result from the
proposal on the Subject Properties. However, those comments do not address this criterion because they
do not compare those alleged consequences to the ESEE consequences that would result from the same
Page 19
proposal on other properties that also require a Goal Exception. Although COLW's comments specifically
identify this criterion as not being satisfied, it does so based on an assertion that other areas "that do not
require a new goal exception" could accommodate the proposed use and that those areas are already
impacted. As explained above, however, that assertion is not responsive to this portion of the statute or its
implementing rule, which require a comparison to other properties that do require a new Goal Exception.
The assessment and comparison of ESEE consequences is ultimately a discretionary exercise to be
undertaken by the County Board. However, based on the current record, and having reviewed the
information provided by the Applicant and other participants, I find that the Applicant has met its burden
to show that the ESEE consequences resulting from the proposal on the Subject Properties are not
significantly more adverse than the ESEE consequences that would result if the proposal were sited on
other properties also requiring a Goal Exception.
ORS 197.732(2)(c)(D)
The final part of ORS 197.732(2)(c) requires a demonstration of compatibility with other adjacent uses.
The statute's implementing rule — OAR 660-004-0020(2)(d) — imposes the following additional
requirements:
The exception shall describe how the proposed use will be rendered
compatible with adjacent land uses. The exception shall demonstrate that
the proposed use is situated in such a manner as to be compatible with
surrounding natural resources and resource management or production
practices. "Compatible" is not intended as an absolute term meaning no
interference or adverse impacts of any type with adjacent uses.
The Applicant responds to this criterion by reviewing the various uses allowed in the MUA-10 zone and
describing the likely impacts from those uses. For some conditional uses, like dude ranches, golf courses,
and destination resorts, the Applicant asserts that the Subject Properties are too small to accommodate
those uses and, therefore, no impacts are likely to exist.' For other allowed uses, like agricultural
operations, horse stables, and home occupations, the Applicant asserts those uses are low -intensity and
will not generate significant impacts.
Opposing comments in the record express concern over a wide variety of potential impacts, but those
comments are largely grounded on the assumption that the Subject Properties will be used for urban
development, which is not a proposed use in the Application. COLW, however, does expressly address
this criterion, asserting that some of the adjacent properties are forest zoned lands and that the proposal
would introduce conflicts to forest practices on those lands. The Applicant responds by arguing that any
5 I note that the County Board, if it approves the Goal 4 Exception, has the ability to limit uses allowed
on the Subject Properties and, indeed, may be required to do so under OAR 660-004-0018(4), which
states that planning and zoning for an area subject to a Reasons Exception must limit uses to those that
are justified in the exception. Because the Applicant states that dude ranches, golf course, and
destination resorts are not feasible, the County Board may limit its approval to exclude those uses.
Page 110
potential conflicts can be addressed at a later approval stage if and when portions of the Subject Properties
are proposed for development under the new MUA-10 zone.
While this particular issue is a close call, I find that the Application has met its burden with respect to this
criterion. In a different context, more details from an applicant may be required. In this context, however,
where the proposal is to establish the MUA-10 zone, I find there is a sufficient basis to determine that all
of the uses allowed in the MUA10 zone are compatible with adjacent uses and with surrounding natural
resources. With respect to non -resource uses, like the adjacent urban area to the south, the MUA-10 zone
is a transition zone that actually serves as a buffer between urban and rural areas. With respect to resources
on adjacent properties and surrounding areas, I note the purpose of the MUA10 zone:
The purposes of the Multiple Use Agricultural Zone are to preserve the rural
character of various areas of the County while permitting development
consistent with that character and with the capacity of the natural resources
of the area; to preserve and maintain agricultural lands not suited to full-
time commercial farming for diversified or part-time agricultural uses; to
conserve forest lands for forest uses; to conserve open spaces and rp otect
natural and scenic resources; to maintain and improve the quality of the air,
water and land resources of the County; to establish standards and
procedures for the use of those lands designated unsuitable for intense
development by the Comprehensive Plan, and to provide for an orderly and
efficient transition from rural to urban land use. DCC 18.32.010 (emphasis
added).
Through that stated purpose, the County has already determined that all of the MUA-10 zone uses are
consistent with the character and capacity of natural resources in the area and serve to protect, rather than
to harm, agricultural and forest lands.
2. Plan Amendment
DCC 18.136.010 contemplates that an applicant may seek a quasi-judicial amendment to the County's
Comprehensive Plan Map ("Plan Map"). Other than a reference to the procedural provisions of DCC Title
22, the Code does not appear to contain any standards or criteria specific to an amendment to the Plan
Map. As noted in findings above, however, such an amendment constitutes a PAPA under state law and,
therefore, the amendment must be consistent with all applicable Statewide Planning Goals.
Division 15 of OAR chapter 660 sets forth the Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines, with which all
comprehensive plan amendments must demonstrate compliance. The Applicant asserts the Application is
consistent with all applicable Goals and Guidelines. Except for Goal 4, Goal 5, and Goal 14, which are
addressed in more detail in findings below, and in the absence of any counter evidence or argument, I
adopt the Applicants' position on the remining Goals as recited on pages 50 to 52 of the Staff Report, and
I find that the Plan Amendment and Zone Change are consistent with the applicable Goals and Guidelines
as set forth there.
Page ( 11
The remainder of the findings in this section address specific Goals that are either in dispute or that require
additional explanation.
Goal 4 — Forest Lands
The Applicant acknowledges that the Subject Properties are currently zoned for forest use and subject to
Goal 4. The Applicant, however, has requested a Goal 4 Exception. As set forth in separate findings above,
this Recommendation concludes that the Applicant has met its burden to demonstrate the justification for
a Goal 4 Exception. As a result, the Plan Amendment can proceed without showing compliance with Goal
4. If the County Board determines that the Goal 4 Exception is not warranted, the Applicant will need to
show compliance with Goal 4.
Goal 5 — Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces
Goal 5 and its implementing rules protect natural resources, scenic and historic areas, and open spaces.
Pursuant to OAR 660-023-0250(3), the County does not have to apply Goal 5 as part of a PAPA "unless
the PAPA affects a Goal 5 resource." One scenario in which a PAPA may affect a Goal 5 resource is when
the "PAPA allows new uses that could be conflicting uses with a particular significant Goal 5 resource
site on an acknowledged resource list."6 According to information in the record, the Subject Properties
contain or are near to two significant Goal 5 resources: (1) Trout Creek and (2) scenic resources along
Highway 20.
The Applicant first asserts that the County is not required to apply Goal 5 to this Application because the
uses allowed in the MUA-10 zone will not conflict with the identified Goal 5 resources. The Applicant
bases this assertion on its arguments that the uses allowed in the MUA-10 zone are rural, low -intensity
uses, that Trout Creek will be protected by the County's existing development standards in the MUA-10
zone, and that development on the Subject Properties will not be visible from Highway 20 due to land use
patterns between the Subject Properties and the highway.
I disagree with the Applicant that the County is not required to apply Goal 5 in this context. The
administrative rule requires Goal 5 to be addressed if a PAPA allows new uses that "could" conflict with
a Goal 5 resource. Because the MUA-10 zone allows uses not currently allowed in the F-2 zone, and
because the Applicant is not proposing a specific development, any of the new uses allowed could conflict
with the identified Goal 5 resources. The Applicant's arguments are more relevant to the remainder of the
Goal 5 analysis and whether additional protections are needed.
As an alternative argument, the Applicant does provide an ESEE analysis as required by OAR 660-023-
0040(1). In accordance with that administrative rule, the Applicant's analysis identifies conflicting uses,
determines an impact area, analyzes the ESEE consequences, and proposes a "program" to achieve Goal
5 protections. The specific program proposed by the Applicant is to allow the conflicting uses in a limited
way that protects the Goal 5 resources, as authorized by OAR 660-023-0040(5)(b). For Trout Creek, the
proposed limit is the development standards in DCC Chapter 18.32 that the Applicant asserts are already
6 OAR 660-023-0250(3)(b).
Page 112
designed to protect environmental resources on the site, including streams. For the scenic resource, the
proposed limit is the application of the County's Landscape Management (LM) combining zone, which
already applies to a portion of the Subject Properties, and which the County employs to protect scenic
resources along Highway 20.
COLW submitted comments arguing that the Applicant's ESEE is deficient. COLW first asserts that the
Applicant's analysis "impermissibly groups several allowed uses in the MUA zone, when they would have
varying impacts on inventoried Goal 5 resources." COLW cites to OAR 660-023-0040(2) as support for
that argument. The language of the rule COLW cites does not support its argument, which is also counter
to other rule language. OAR 660-023-0040(2) simply states that the local government "shall examine land
uses allowed outright or conditionally within the zones applied to the resource site and in its impact area."
That rule imposes no requirement mandating or prohibiting the grouping of several uses as part of the
analysis. In contrast, OAR 660-023-0040(4) provides that, in analyzing ESEE consequences, "[t]he
analysis may address each of the identified conflicting uses, or it may address a group of similar conflicting
uses." (Emphasis added).
COLW next argues that the Applicant's ESEE analysis "conflates ESEE consequences on Riparian Area
resources and Scenic Views resources, when separate analyses are required." I disagree with COLW's
characterization of the Applicant's analysis. Each of the steps in that analysis has separate references to
Trout Creek and to scenic resources.
Finally, COLW argues that the Applicant's ESEE analysis "fails to consider consequences to the entire
Scenic Views resource." Again, COLW's characterization of the Applicant's analysis is not accurate. The
information provided by the Applicant states that the Subject Properties are not visible from any portion
of Highway 20 and, therefore, that there is no impact to the identified scenic resource.
Other than the comments by COLW, which relate only to the methodology of the ESEE analysis and not
the outcome, including the proposed "program" to achieve Goal 5, no other participant directly addresses
the Goal 5 requirements.
Based on the foregoing and the materials in this record, I find that the Applicant has met its burden of
demonstrating compliance with Goal 5.
Goal 14 — Urbanization
Goal 14 and its implementing rules "provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban
land use." See OAR 660-015-0000(14).
COLW also cites to OAR 660-023-0040(2) to support an argument that the ESEE analysis is deficient
because it "only considers the consequences of a decision to allow development, not a decision to limit
or prohibit development." I find that this argument is not developed enough to respond to. The rule
COLW cites does not contain language relating to decisions that either allow, limit, or prohibit
development, and I am unable to determine what criterion COLW believes is not satisfied.
Page 113
COLW asserts that the Applicant has not demonstrated compliance with Goal 14. COLW's assertion is
largely based on its characterization of the Application as proposing urban development. As noted in
earlier findings, however, the Applicant is not proposing any urban uses and is instead proposing that the
Subject Properties be zoned MUA-10. Goal 14 would therefore apply only if such a rezoning constitutes
urbanization. I find that it does not.
As the Applicant notes, this question has been asked and answered by the County, as described in the
LUBA case Central Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes County, Or LUBA (LUBA No. 2023-049,
Feb. 15, 2024). In that case, LUBA considered very similar facts where the County approved a plan
amendment and zone change from a resource zone to the MUA-10 zone. Before turning to COLW's
arguments in that case, LUBA noted that the County Board had made the following finding:
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and Title 18 of the Deschutes
County Code have been acknowledged by [the Land Conservation and
Development Commission (LCDC)] as being in compliance with every
statewide planning goal, including Goal 14. The County specifically
amended its comprehensive plan in 2016 to provide that the Rural
Residential Exception Area Plan and its related MUA-10 and RR-10 zones
should be applied to non resource lands. Ordinance 2016-005. This
amendment is acknowledged, which means that the RREA plan designation
and its related zoning districts, when applied to non -resource lands such as
the subject property do not result in a violation of Goal 14. (Emphasis
added).
As described by LUBA, the County Board has already interpreted its Plan and Code to mean that all uses
allowed in the MUA-10 zone are rural in nature. Based on the Board's prior interpretation, I find that the
change in the Plan designation to RREA and zoning designation to MUA-10 does not result in urbanization
of the Subject Property.
Based on the foregoing, I find that the Applicant has demonstrated the Application does not propose urban
uses and Goal 14 is satisfied without the need to take an exception to that Goal.
3. Zone Change
Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, County Zoning
The Application requests a Zone Change from F-2 to MUA-10. The criteria for rezoning a parcel are set
forth in DCC Chapter 18.136. These findings address the applicable zone change criteria in the context of
the Applicant's request. That is, the Applicant has also requested the Plan Amendment to change the Plan
Map designation applicable to the Subject Properties — from the Forest designation to the RREA
designation. As discussed in the findings above, I have found that the Applicant has initially met its burden
of demonstrating compliance with the Plan Amendment criteria. The findings in this section are therefore
based on the assumption that the Plan designation for the Subject Properties is RREA. If the County Board
does not approve the Plan Amendment, these findings will need to be altered to address the request for a
Zone Change based on whatever Plan designation the County Board approves.
Page114
Section 18.136.020, Rezoning Standards
The applicant for a quasi-judicial rezoning must establish that the public interest is best served
by rezoning the property. Factors to be demonstrated by the applicant are:
A. That the change conforms with the Comprehensive Plan, and the change is consistent with
the plan's introductory statement and goals.
This Code provision requires a consideration of the public interest based on whether: (1) the Zone Change
conforms to the Comprehensive Plan; and (2) the change is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's
introductory statement and goals.
The Applicant, Staff, and other participants address this Code criterion by discussing specific Plan goals
and policies. Before addressing those specific arguments, I note that, if the Plan Amendment is approved,
it seems necessary to rezone the Subject Properties in some way. That is, the Forest designation of the
Plan is implemented through the F-1 and F-2 zone designations. The RREA Plan designation, in contrast,
is implemented only through the RR-10 and MUA-10 zones. There seems to be no basis under the Plan to
allow the Plan Amendment to change the designation of the Subject Properties to RREA but to keep the
F-2 zoning. Viewed through that lens, it seems that either the RR-10 or the MUA-10 zones inherently
conform to the Plan in this context, and that the Applicant must show only that the Zone Change, as
applied to the Subject Properties, is consistent with the Plan's introductory statement and goals.
The Staff Report notes that the County generally does not consider the Plan's goals and policies to be
mandatory criteria. As described by Staff, the Plan's goals and policies are implemented through the Code,
and that consistency with the Code demonstrates consistency with the Plan. No participant to this
proceeding appears to dispute Staff s position that the goals and polices are not mandatory criteria or that
the Plan is implemented through the Code. Nevertheless, because the Code itself requires a consideration
of the Plan's statements and goals, and because some participants have questioned whether the Zone
Change is consistent with those Plan provisions, I address those specific issues here.
The Application identifies potentially relevant Plan provisions by pointing to several goals and policies in
the Plan set forth in Chapter 1, Comprehensive Planning, Chapter 2, Resource Management, and Chapter
3, Rural Growth Management. The Applicant states that the Application is consistent with those policies
and goals. The Staff Report generally agrees with the Applicant's assessment of those policies and goals,
but in some areas takes no position. With some exceptions, other participants to this proceeding assert
various impacts from the Zone Change that are related to areas covered by Plan policies (e.g. water
quality), but do so in a manner that does not directly relate to whether the Zone Change is consistent with
the Plan. The remainder of the findings in this section address those Plan goals and policies that were
specifically identified by those other participants.
Participants objecting to the Application assert that it is not consistent with Plan policy 2.3.1. That policy
is to "Retain forest lands through Forest 1 and Forest 2 zoning." The basis for that argument appears to
be that the Subject Properties are currently zoned F-2 and, therefore, any change to the zoning would be
counter to this policy. As noted above, I have concluded that the review of the Plan policies should be
done in the context of the approval of the Plan Amendment. Because, for purposes of this analysis, the
Page 115
Applicant is relying on a Goal 4 Exception and the Subject Properties carry the RREA designation, I do
not agree that the Subject Properties remain "forest land". The Zone Change is therefore not inconsistent
with Plan policy 2.3.1.
Participants objecting to the Application also assert that it is not consistent with Plan policy 2.3.1. That
policy is part of the same set of policies related to Goal 1 under Section 2.3 of the Plan. It identifies the
specific characteristics of lands that should be zoned F-2, as opposed to that that should be zoned F-1.
However, that policy rests on the assumption that the land is forest land and that the County should
determine whether that land should be zoned either as F-1 or F-2. As just noted, for purposes of this
analysis, the Applicant is relying on a Goal 4 Exception and the Subject Properties carry the RREA
designation. The Subject Properties therefore do not remain "forest land" and the Zone Change is not
inconsistent with Plan policy 2.3.3.
Based on the foregoing, and in the context of the approval of the requested Plan Amendment, I find that
the Zone Change conforms with the Plan and is consistent with the introductory statements and policies
of the Plan.
B. That the change in classification for the subject property is consistent with the purpose and
intent of the proposed zone classification.
DCC 18.32.010 contains the following purpose of the MUA10 zone:
The purposes of the Multiple Use Agricultural Zone are to preserve the rural
character of various areas of the County while permitting development
consistent with that character and with the capacity of the natural resources
of the area; to preserve and maintain agricultural lands not suited to full-
time commercial fanning for diversified or part-time agricultural uses; to
conserve forest lands for forest uses; to conserve open spaces and protect
natural and scenic resources; to maintain and improve the quality of the air,
water and land resources of the County; to establish standards and
procedures for the use of those lands designated unsuitable for intense
development by the Comprehensive Plan, and to provide for an orderly and
efficient transition from rural to urban land use.
The Applicant states that the Zone Change will allow low -intensity residential uses, while also allowing
uses recognized in DCC 18.32.020 and 18.32.030 as being appropriate in the MUA-10 zone. The
Applicant also states that the uses allowed are lower intensity, and development can preserve open space
and natural resources. The Staff Report agrees with the Applicant's assessment, and no other participant
appears to argue that this Code provision is not satisfied.
Based on the foregoing, I find that this Code provision is satisfied.
Page 116
C. That changing the zoning will presently serve the public health, safety and welfare
considering the following factors:
The availability and efficiency of providing necessary public services and facilities.
Only the Applicant and Staff directly address this Code provision. The Applicant notes that development
in the MUA-10 zone generally does not rely on public services and facilities. For example, developments
in rural areas generally must provide their own water and septic systems. For other facilities, like the
transportation system, the Applicant relies on its transportation analysis to demonstrate the adequacy of
those facilities. Comments in the record express concerns over groundwater, but those comments do not
appear to assert that the availability of groundwater is either a necessary public service, or that it will be
impacted by the uses allowed in the MUA-10 zone. The Applicant is not proposing any new development,
and no participant has asserted that public services and facilities are insufficient to presently serve the
Subject Properties. Any impact to public services and facilities can be assessed at the time of development
review if and when a new development is proposed.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of more specific countervailing evidence or argument, I find
that this Code provision is satisfied as set forth in the Application.
2. The impacts on surrounding land use will be consistent with the specific goals and
policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan.
The Applicant states that the Applicant's proposal will not affect surrounding land uses due to the low -
intensity uses that are allowed in the MUA-10 zone. I agree with the Applicant that the comments made
in opposition to the Application are primarily grounded on the assumption that the Subject Properties
will be developed with urban uses, which the Applicant is not proposing. Further, as I have concluded
above, the only Plan policies identified by other participants are generally not relevant, and no
participants assert that the Zone Change will make surrounding land uses inconsistent with a Plan goal
or policy.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of more specific countervailing evidence or argument, I find
that this Code provision is satisfied as set forth in the Application.
D. That there has been a change in circumstances since the property was last zoned, or a mistake
was made in the zoning of the property in question.
Although the Applicant and other participants address this criterion, they do so in the context of a
potential change in circumstances on the physical ground of the Subject Properties. The Applicant, for
example, notes the changes in the commercial viability of timber and a better understanding of the soil
qualities on site.
I find that it is not necessary to address the difference in opinion of the Applicant and participants. As
noted above, the Zone Change analysis relies on the assumption that the Plan designation for the Subject
Properties is RREA. When the Subject Properties were last zoned, their Plan designation was Forestry. I
Page117
find that the change in Plan designation is, by itself, sufficient to show there has been a change in
circumstances and, therefore, this Code provision is satisfied.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing findings, I find the Applicant has met its burden of proof with respect to the
standards for approving the requested Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Goal 4 Exception. I can
therefore recommend to the County Board of Commissioners that it can APPROVE the request in the
Application based on the current record.
Dated this 25th day of June 2025
Tommy A. Brooks
Deschutes County Hearings Officer
Page 118
MEETING DATE: October 6, 2025
SUBJECT: Corrected Ordinance No. 2025-014: McKenzie Meadow Village Plan Amendment
and Zone Change
RECOMMENDED MOTIONS:
1. Move approval of first and second reading of Ordinance No. 2025-014 by title only;
and
2. Move adoption of Ordinance No. 2025-14 by emergency to take effect immediately.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Due to a scrivener's error, the ordinance adopted by the Board on October 1, 2025 to
change the Comprehensive Plan designation of approximately 58 acres adjacent to the City
of Sisters from Forest to Rural Residential Exception Area and rezone the subject
properties from Forest Use 2 (F-2) to Multiple Use Agricultural - 10 Acre Minimum (MUA-10)
had an incorrect reference number.
Board action is needed to conduct first and second reading and adopt this ordinance under
the corrected reference number of 2025-014.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
None
ATTENDANCE:
Haleigh King, Senior Planner