Board moves forward on Mackenzie Meadow Village plan amendment; asks for draft decisions and follows up deliberations

The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners on Aug. 6 heard a multi‑hour de novo public hearing on a quasi‑judicial application from Mackenzie Meadow Village LLC requesting a comprehensive plan amendment and zone change for roughly 58 acres adjacent to the city of Sisters (file no. 2472483839PA840ZC). After applicant presentations, agency input and more than a dozen oral comments both in support and opposition, the board voted to approve the application in principle and directed staff and the applicant to prepare draft decision versions and return for final deliberations.

Senior planner Hallie King presented the application and described the process: the request seeks a plan designation change from resource (forest) to rural residential exception area (RREA) and a corresponding zone change from Forest Use 2 (F‑2) to Multiple Use Agriculture, 10‑acre minimum (MUA‑10). The application also includes a Goal 4 (forest lands) exception (the “reasons” exception) under state rules; the hearings officer previously held an initial hearing and issued a recommendation for approval on June 25. King told the board that staff posted the commissioners’ memo on July 30 and had received eight additional written comments before the meeting (six in opposition, two in support).

Applicant attorney Chris Koback said Mackenzie Meadow Village LLC (MMV) — property owners who described long ties to Sisters — is seeking the designation and zone change to be plausibly prioritized for a future city of Sisters urban growth boundary (UGB) expansion. Koback said the property is 58 relatively level acres adjacent to existing development, already platted in three legal lots, has utility stubs to the south, and, the applicant contends, limited suitability for commercial forestry based on a report from a contracted forester. Koback told the board the owners envision eventually providing housing — including an ownership and rental mix with an affordability commitment — and said MMV had voluntarily committed to a 30% affordable housing target (using the Oregon SB 15307 affordability definitions referenced by the applicant’s development partner) if the site is ultimately annexed and developed with the city.

County planning manager Will Groves and other staff explained the difference between this County decision and a separate UGB process run by the City of Sisters: rezoning to MUA‑10 and an RREA designation do not by themselves add land to the city’s UGB, but the change would affect how the city ranks the parcel in a future UGB evaluation. Staff also summarized technical constraints and protections that would apply to any future development: the property contains Trout Creek and associated riparian area, which is subject to a 100‑foot setback on either side under county code; landscape management and airport safety overlay zones would remain in place; and any development would require delineation of wetlands and floodplain mapping where applicable.

During public testimony, supporters highlighted the county and city’s affordable‑housing needs. Testimony in support came from representatives of local housing organizations and community groups, including Sisters Habitat for Humanity (Peter Hoover), Sisters Opportunity for Unified Living (SOUL) (Tina Mensing), and members of the MMV ownership team (Kurt Kahlberg, Bill Willett). Supporters said the parcel’s single ownership, adjacency to infrastructure and proximity to schools and downtown make it more readily developable than many other candidate sites. Several speakers urged the board to move the application forward to allow the city to consider the parcel as part of its UGB alternatives.

Opponents and conservation groups, including Central Oregon LandWatch (staff attorney Corey Isabel), raised environmental and process concerns: potential loss of forest resources and wildlife habitat (speakers cited Trout Creek, riparian wetlands and local plants including rare penstemon species), wildfire risk in the wildland‑urban interface, impacts to the Trout Creek Conservation Area (owned by Sisters School District), and whether rezoning to improve UGB ranking would short‑circuit the city’s prioritization process. LandWatch urged the board to deny the goal exception request or at minimum to require a specific development program to evaluate impacts under the exception criteria.

The hearings officer (Tommy Brooks) had recommended approval after a prior hearing; that recommendation and its analytical findings remained in the record. Counsel and several speakers debated whether a Goal 4 exception requires a detailed, site‑specific development plan or whether the “reasons” exception may be applied without a precise future subdivision plan; applicant counsel cited ORS 197.732 and state administrative rules (OAR 660‑004 series) in support of proceeding without a full development plan, while opponents urged the board to require more specificity to judge the exception criteria.

Following testimony and applicant rebuttal, commissioners discussed key points raised by the public and staff, including scenic corridors along Highway 20, riparian setbacks and Trout Creek protections, habitat connectivity between the Trout Creek Conservation Area and federal lands, wildfire considerations, and the applicant’s 30% affordability commitment. Board members said they were willing to consider conditions and draft findings to address scenic and riparian protections and to clarify what uses would be allowed if a Goal 4 exception is granted.

The board voted to accept the application for approval in concept (noted vote: unanimous) and directed staff and the applicant to prepare draft decision documents (including alternative proposed findings and modular conditions to address scenic corridor, riparian/habitat protection, and other community concerns) and return the matter to the board for formal deliberations and a final decision. The board record shows the specific next steps: the applicant will prepare draft final decision language for county review and staff will prepare a recommended decision for board deliberation at a time to be set. The motion and vote did not itself change the county comprehensive plan or rezone the property; the board’s action was procedural — approval in concept with conditions to be finalized in a subsequent decision.

The hearing record includes the applicant’s materials, the hearings officer recommendation dated June 25, written comments submitted before and during the hearing (staff noted eight additional pre‑hearing written comments posted July 30), and testimony both in favor and opposed. Staff and the applicant noted potential dependencies on the city of Sisters’ UGB process and acknowledged that any final outcome could be subject to appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals.