Jefferson County approves comprehensive plan amendment and zone change for 142.5-acre Crooked River Ranch parcel after LUBA remand

MADRAS, Ore. — On Jan. 15, 2025 the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners rescinded its Nov. 26, 2024 approval and then voted unanimously to approve a comprehensive plan amendment and a concurrent zone change for about 142.5 acres of land in Crooked River Ranch, a property identified in county records as tax lot 131223, tax lot 100. The applicant is Mac Investments Incorporated; the county case file is 22-PA-04 and the matter came back to the board on remand from the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA).

The hearing was limited in scope by the LUBA remand to three issues: (1) fully incorporate and set forth findings of fact and a statement of reasons justifying exceptions to statewide planning Goal 3 (agricultural lands) and Goal 14 (urbanization) pursuant to ORS 197.7324, section 4; (2) revise the comprehensive plan amendment to include the exception and supporting findings per OAR 660-004-0015(1); and (3) draft additional findings establishing that it is necessary or required to change the designation and zoning of the subject property to rural residential consistent with the holding in Central Oregon Land Watch v. Jefferson County, City of Metolius (LUBA No. 2021-054). The board recorded and limited testimony to those issues.

Chairman Mark Wunsch opened the special meeting and asked for a motion to rescind the board's Nov. 26, 2024 approval. After a motion and second, Wunsch called for the vote: "Aye. Motion carries," he said, and the earlier action was rescinded to allow the remand hearing to proceed.

Phil Stenbeck of the Jefferson County Community Development Department presented the staff report and confirmed the remand scope and the exhibits in the record, including draft findings submitted by the applicant (Exhibit A), proposed plan language for incorporation into the comprehensive plan (Exhibit B), a letter from Central Oregon Land Watch (Exhibit C), and applicant letters dated Dec. 11, 2024 and Jan. 8, 2025 (Exhibits D and E).

Adam Smith, an attorney representing the applicant, urged the board to limit the hearing to the three remand issues and to accept into the record written letters submitted after the Jan. 8 deadline but to treat only material within scope as substantive. "We think our our application stands on its own 2 feet," Smith said, arguing the county could satisfy LUBA by consolidating and clarifying findings rather than reopening the entire matter.

Rory Isbell, staff attorney for Central Oregon Land Watch, said the appellant believes the remand requires broader review. Quoting the Court of Appeals, Isbell told the board: "Given the overarching inadequacy of the county's findings and statements of reasons, we conclude that LUBA did not err as a matter of substance or procedure when it remanded the entire case to the county to supply adequate findings and statements of reasons." Isbell argued that, on remand, the county must revisit the Goal 3 and Goal 14 exceptions and provide opportunity for public comment on those issues.

Members of the public testified both in favor of and opposed to the application. Supporters said the proposed rural residential designation is consistent with the local pattern; opponents raised questions about water supply, long-term fiscal impacts to county taxpayers, and whether the application met the county plan's requirement that an amendment be "necessary, indispensable, or essential." Mac Walker, a Crooked River Ranch resident, told the board he did not find the record persuasive that the change was "indispensable or essential" and urged the county to consider taxpayer costs for rural services. Several residents identified their addresses in testimony and said they had concerns about well depths, infrastructure capacity, and the age of evidence in the record.

The applicant objected to admission of testimony the applicant considered out of scope and proposed two ways to handle late-submitted written materials: (1) accept them and open a short written-record period or (2) reject them and deliberate on the closed record. The board redacted portions of Central Oregon Land Watch's Nov. 25, 2024 letter (the record note refers to sections being redacted) and stated the oral record would include only testimony within the scope of the remand.

After public testimony and applicant rebuttal, the board voted to close the hearing and commence deliberations. A motion was made and seconded to approve the comprehensive plan amendment (change designation from rangeland to rural land) with a concurrent zone change from rangeland to rural residential, to adopt the submitted findings, and to direct staff to prepare an ordinance and final findings. The motion carried on a voice vote; the board recorded the result as "Aye. Aye. Aye. Motion carries." The board directed staff that, due to ordinance-adoption notice requirements, the earliest date available for formal ordinance adoption is Feb. 5, 2025.

What the board decided on Jan. 15 was procedural and tied to a narrow LUBA remand: the county has approved consolidated findings and a plan amendment that, in the board's view, address LUBA's directives on Goals 3 and 14 and show the necessity to change designation for the subject property. Opponents and Central Oregon Land Watch signaled they believe the remand required a broader reopening of issues; that contention remains part of the record and could be raised in further appeals.

The county record for this matter includes the applicant's exhibits and letters (including Dec. 11, 2024 and Jan. 8, 2025), a Central Oregon Land Watch submission dated Nov. 25, 2024 (redacted as noted in the hearing), and the staff report. The board's action directs staff to prepare an ordinance and findings for formal adoption at the next available meeting consistent with notice requirements.

Next steps: staff will draft the ordinance and findings for the board; the earliest adoption hearing is Feb. 5, 2025. Any party still dissatisfied with the county's final action may have further appellate options under Oregon land use law.

Speakers quoted in this article are included in the meeting transcript and appear in the official record.