Deschutes County commissioners consider limited reopening of record in Destiny Court remand over farm‑use analysis

Caroline House, senior planner for Deschutes County, told the Board of County Commissioners on Jan. 7 that Destiny Court Properties LLC has asked the county to review a LUBA remand of a plan amendment and zone change for a roughly 65‑acre site north of Bend and south of Tumalo.

House said LUBA sent the board back to address two discrete issues: whether MUA‑10 zoning density allowances are consistent with the county comprehensive plan’s rural residential policies and minimum 10‑acre guidance, and whether the board had adequately analyzed which farm uses would be suitable on the subject property. The county has a 120‑day remand review period with no extensions, House said, and the applicant requested that the board reopen the record limited to the farm‑use analysis (remand issue 2) but not to issue 1.

Commissioners asked staff and legal counsel whether reopening the record on issue 1 (the density/cluster allowances question) would add factual evidence the board needs or whether the board instead must provide clearer findings connecting the information already in the record to the required legal conclusions. Senior assistant legal counsel Stephanie Marshall said parties who previously participated may submit new suggested findings or arguments but not new evidence for issue 1; the applicant may submit additional argumentation consistent with remand rules.

Given the short timeline and the applicant’s request, staff presented three options: keep the original record closed and decide on existing materials; reopen the record only for remand issue 2; or reopen the record on all remand issues. A commissioner moved to approve Order No. 2026‑002 to reopen the record for remand file 24725759‑A to accept new evidence related to whether the subject property is suitable for farm uses; the motion was seconded on the record. The transcript records the motion and that a vote was to be taken, but it does not include a formal tally or a recorded final outcome.

House told the board that, procedurally, remand hearings default to the earlier administrative record unless the board explicitly reopens it; reopening would require the county to send notice at least 20 days before a Jan. 28 hearing stating whether the record will be reopened. Staff and counsel advised the board that decisions about reopening can be revisited at the hearing if parties present arguments at that time.

The board’s packet contained draft orders corresponding to the reopening options and staff said, because of the compressed remand timeline, it would be efficient to sign any order the board selects at the Jan. 7 meeting.

The transcript shows the board debated focusing the reopening on the farm‑use analysis rather than reintroducing broader evidence, and noted that issue 1 may instead require improved findings tying the existing record to applicable plan and code standards. The next procedural step identified in the meeting was the remand hearing scheduled for Jan. 28; notice and any decision to reopen the record must be handled consistent with the 120‑day remand clock.