Deschutes commissioners deliberate LUBA remand on Destiny Court rezoning; split on farm‑use suitability

Deschutes County commissioners on March 4, 2026 resumed deliberations on a Land Use Board of Appeals remand asking the board to resolve whether a property at 119975 Destiny Court should be rezoned from Exclusive Farm Use to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA10).

Senior planner Caroline House told the board the remand raised two central questions: (1) how Comprehensive Plan policy 3.3.1—which sets a 10‑acre minimum for new residential parcels outside the westside transact zone—interacts with MUA10 provisions that allow cluster/plan developments with equivalent densities; and (2) whether the parcel is suitable for the specific farm uses Central Oregon Land Watch identified, using the factors set out in the administrative rule cited in the remand.

Why it matters: The board’s interpretation will guide not only this application but also future planned‑unit or cluster developments in the county’s MUA zone. A decision that accepts the applicant’s approach (allowing reduced lot sizes if open‑space offsets restore an equivalent 10‑acre density) would permit a different pattern of subdivision than a strict reading of the comprehensive plan.

The applicant argued the site is not suitable for the farm uses LandWatch identified. Staff and the applicant pointed to expert testimony asserting the parcel’s soils are rocky and of low fertility, that irrigation and other inputs would be costly and not economically viable, and that only limited portions could be profitably farmed. The applicant proposed conditions of approval—such as minimum lot sizes of two acres plus preserved open space totaling an equivalent 10‑acre density—to address the county policy while allowing a cluster development framework.

Central Oregon Land Watch countered that the parcel shares key features with working farms documented in the record and that profitability can be achieved on parts of the site, so the property should be considered suitable for the farm uses listed in the remand.

Board reaction was divided. One commissioner emphasized that the comprehensive plan’s 10‑acre standard should prevail where no westside transact exception applies and suggested pausing the application until plan amendments clarify cluster‑development standards. Others said the county’s current practice and the applicant’s conditions of approval can appropriately manage density while protecting long‑term agricultural use.

On the suitability question tied to the OAR factors, the board similarly split: two commissioners indicated a conclusion that the property is or could be suitable for some farm uses based on available water rights and usable acreage, while another commissioner agreed with the applicant’s experts that soils and rockiness make the site generally unsuitable. The applicant requested, and the board accepted, that staff coordinate with the applicant to draft a proposed final order; staff expects to return with a recommended final decision in late March or early April for the board to act on.

No final land‑use decision was made at the March 4 meeting. The board confirmed it will treat the four contested exhibits as part of the record for deliberations and directed staff to prepare a decision consistent with the board’s discussion for a future vote.

Authorities referenced in the deliberations included Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan policy 3.3.1, MUA10 code provisions (county code), LUBA’s remand order, and the administrative rule cited in the remand. The board also invoked the procedural framework for accepting post‑hearing materials when considering exhibits included with the applicant’s final argument.

What’s next: Staff will work with the applicant to draft the board’s decision for a future meeting; no final order was adopted on March 4.