Board approves plan amendment and rezoning for 240‑acre tract east of Bend over one commissioner''s objection
Loading...
Summary
After deliberation, the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners approved a comprehensive plan amendment and zone change for four tax lots totaling roughly 240 acres east of Bend. The hearings officer had recommended approval; the board voted 2‑1 following discussion of soils, existing solar facilities and proximity to Bend's urban growth boundary.
The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners voted Oct. 15 to approve a comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning application affecting four tax lots east of Bend that total approximately 240 acres. The hearings officer had recommended approval; the board accepted that recommendation with additional clarifications discussed during the deliberation.
The request would change the zoning on the parcels from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA‑10). Associate planner Audrey Stewart presented a decision matrix and summarized the hearings‑record arguments and issues the board needed to resolve, including: whether the property’s soils qualify it as agricultural land under state rules; whether the county’s landscape management combining zone and an applicant Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy (ESEE) analysis satisfy Goal 5 (scenic resource) requirements for the Highway 20 corridor; whether a pre‑existing photovoltaic solar facility on part of the property would become a nonconforming use under the new zoning; and whether the change would improperly permit urban uses and trigger a Goal 14 (urbanization) exception.
On soils, the hearings officer accepted a soils analysis that relied on NRCS soil mapping and a professional soil classifier’s methodology; the board agreed with the hearings officer that the property was predominantly Class 7 and 8 soils and therefore did not qualify as agricultural land under the applicable OAR definition. The board accepted the hearings officer’s finding that the ESEE analysis and the existing landscape management combining zone together address Goal 5 concerns for the Highway 20 scenic corridor.
The board also addressed the solar facility, which had previously been permitted as a conditional use under EFU zoning. Staff and the hearings officer noted that the photovoltaic facility could continue as an existing nonconforming use under county code if the zone change is approved; commissioners discussed the functional life of solar equipment and competing goals for retaining generation capacity, but the board concluded the zone change could proceed while the facility remained a lawfully nonconforming use.
On the question of whether approval would promote an orderly transition from rural to urban uses (Goal 14), commissioners debated proximity to the Bend urban growth boundary and whether rezoning now would foreclose a future urban outcome that might provide greater housing capacity. One commissioner said several lots in the application appear premature for rezoning and urged additional policy work (for example, urban‑area reserve or an urbanization overlay) before rezoning large tracts close to the existing urban growth boundary. The hearings officer’s approach and the applicant’s evidence persuaded two commissioners; Commissioner Chang recorded the dissenting vote, while the other two members voted to adopt the hearings officer’s recommendation. The recorded vote was 2 in favor, 1 opposed.
The board directed staff to prepare final decision documents reflecting the deliberations and stated clarifications. The decision will be issued in writing and include the points raised during the Oct. 15 deliberations.
