Deschutes County holds de novo hearing on 240-acre EFU-to-MUA10 rezoning east of Bend; record left open

The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners on Aug. 20 conducted a de novo public hearing on an application to amend the county comprehensive plan and rezone 240 acres east of Bend from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10). Staff described the property as four tax lots totaling 240 acres, including one dwelling and a photovoltaic array that covers about 62 acres. The board set a written open-record period (standard 7-7-7): new evidence due Aug. 27 at 4 p.m., rebuttal due Sept. 3 at 4 p.m., and final applicant legal argument due Sept. 10 at 4 p.m.; no final decision was made at the hearing.

Why this matters: If ultimately approved and later added to the city urban growth boundary, the zoning change would affect the timing and pattern of development at the urban edge and influence which lands are available for future urbanization. Opponents argued the change would permit suburban-style development near the UGB, while the applicant and hearings officer said the MUA-10 designation supports an orderly transition from urban to rural uses.

Staff presentation and procedural background Audrey Stewart, associate planner, opened the hearing with a staff overview and explained procedures. Stewart told the board the application seeks a concurrent comprehensive plan amendment (agriculture to rural residential exception area) and a zone change from EFU to MUA-10. She said the property is east of Bend, north of Highway 20, bordered by Ward Road to the west and Erickson Road to the east, and contains one dwelling and a photovoltaic solar array. Stewart summarized the administrative record: an initial hearings officer hearing was held May 9; the hearings officer recommended approval (recommendation mailed July 9); seven written public comments opposed the application prior to the hearings officer hearing and four additional comments arrived afterward, including one from Central Oregon Land Watch.

Applicant summary and main arguments Christopher Koback, attorney for applicant BCL, LLC, summarized the application and the hearings officer's findings and urged approval. Koback said the property contains predominantly Class 7 and 8 soils (the applicant’s soil consultant concluded roughly 52% class 7 and 8 soils) and that the applicant’s consultant used NRCS map data to refine the soil classification rather than conducting site-specific test pits. Koback argued that the MUA-10 zone fits the purpose of supporting an orderly transition from urban to rural uses in this area, noting prior EFU-to-MUA rezoning activity nearby. On the solar array, he cited the Oregon Supreme Court precedent that a lawfully established nonconforming use does not by itself make a rezoning inconsistent with the purpose of a new zone and noted prior county approvals of solar facilities in the area required removal guarantees and financial security at end of life.

Opposition and concerns Rory Isbell, staff attorney for Central Oregon Land Watch, testified in opposition. LandWatch argued the change would create a willful nonconforming situation because the solar array is not allowed in MUA and contended the property is agricultural land protected under Statewide Planning Goal 3 when the applicant’s originally-proposed additional 19 acres are considered. LandWatch also raised Goal 14 concerns, saying the proposed densities (including density bonuses for lands within one mile of the urban growth boundary and the county provision allowing no minimum lot size for planned developments) could permit urban-scale residential development that would draw urban services and frustrate established UGB purposes.

Public comment and questions from commissioners A nearby resident (Barnett) raised multiple practical concerns about traffic, wildlife impacts, wells and water rights, septic, emergency services and timing of any future development. Commissioners asked staff and the applicant detailed questions about soils methodology (NRCS mapping vs. site-specific test pits), how the solar array would be treated as a nonconforming use, likely lifespan of the photovoltaic equipment (applicant’s materials and traffic analysis assumed equipment life and possible redevelopment within the county planning horizon of about 20 years), and the relationship between MUA rezones and future urban growth boundary (UGB) expansions. Commissioner Chang also asked staff about county efforts to protect land for future urbanization and staff said a DLCD-funded code project (future urbanization development code amendment) would run through June 2027 with $25,000 in DLCD funding and include outreach to utilities and OWRD; staff said they would provide a more detailed update at the board’s joint meeting with the Planning Commission on Sept. 25.

Hearing record and next steps No party asked that the oral hearing stay open; after discussion the board agreed to a 7-7-7 written open-record period for additional materials (new evidence/testimony due Aug. 27 at 4 p.m., rebuttal Sept. 3 at 4 p.m., applicant final argument Sept. 10 at 4 p.m.). Audrey Stewart instructed parties to email submissions to audrey.stewart@deschutes.org and reminded submitters not to use external cloud links. The board did not reach a final decision; deliberations will be scheduled later after the record closes.

Background points in the record - Application file numbers announced: 2472497PA and 2472498ZC; the applicant filed a modification (file 247-25-000021-MA) that reduced the rezoned acreage to 240 acres. - The hearings officer recommended approval after an open-record hearing; staff received seven initial written opposition comments and four additional comments after the recommendation was mailed. - The property contains an approximately 62-acre photovoltaic array; the applicant’s consultant reported typical equipment lifespan between roughly 20–40 years and the traffic analysis was prepared on the assumption of redevelopment within the 20-year planning horizon when requested by county transportation staff.

What remains unresolved Key unresolved matters in the record include (a) the sufficiency and method of the soil analysis (NRCS map refinement vs. site-specific test pits), (b) whether the parcel qualifies as agricultural land under Goal 3 when surrounding lands and the originally-included 19 acres are considered, (c) whether allowing MUA-10 density and county clustering/planned development provisions could preclude future urbanization consistent with Goal 14, and (d) local concerns about wells, septic capacity, traffic safety and emergency services. These issues are preserved for the written record and for later deliberations.

Quote highlights "The applicant is requesting to change the zoning from exclusive farm use to multiple use agricultural," Audrey Stewart, associate planner. "We respectfully request that it be approved," Christopher Koback, attorney for applicant BCL, LLC. "LandWatch does oppose this application," Rory Isbell, Central Oregon Land Watch staff attorney.

Ending The record will remain open for written submissions under the 7-7-7 schedule; the board will set a later date for deliberations and a final decision after reviewing the supplemental materials that arrive during the open-record period.