Board hears hours-long remand hearing on Last Ranch LLC rezone near Deschutes Junction

The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners heard more than three hours of testimony on July 8 in a remand review of a previously approved comprehensive plan amendment and zone change for a 20.36-acre parcel near Deschutes Junction. The hearing was limited to two issues identified by the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA): whether allowing new rural industrial uses would conflict with the Highway 97 scenic-resource overlay and whether the applicant had adequately analyzed the resource and the potential conflicting uses.

Caroline House, senior planner with the county, outlined procedures and the narrow scope of the remand. “For the record, my name is Caroline House, and I’m a senior planner with the Deschutes County Planning Division,” she said, and explained that participation was limited to parties who previously participated and that the applicant would have 30 minutes to present.

The applicant’s attorney, Carrie Richter of Bateman Seidel, told the board she filed a June 29 EC (economic, social, environmental and energy) analysis specific to the remand and urged the board to reaffirm its earlier approval. “I’m here to testify on behalf of the applicant, Last Ranch LLC,” Richter said, and argued that development consistent with the landscape management (LM) corridor standards — a 100‑foot setback, retention of existing landscaping and muted colors — would preserve the scenic qualities the county intended to protect. Richter also summarized the EC’s conclusion that the property’s developable area and site constraints make the most intensive industrial uses unlikely.

Central Oregon Land Watch, represented by Carol Macbeth, contested the applicant’s position and urged stricter application of the 1992 landscape management protections. Macbeth argued the county’s comprehensive plan and ordinances established specific limits to preserve native landscape and scenic character along Highway 97 and warned of cumulative impacts. “The county is the cause of these cumulative impacts,” Macbeth said, urging the board to treat the remand as a conflict with Goal 5 protections and to require stronger screening or denial.

Board members pressed staff and witnesses about visibility from Highway 97, the condition of existing screening vegetation, whether the property’s water rights and irrigation supported ongoing agricultural use, and how conditional-use and design standards would be used to mitigate impacts. Applicant witnesses and the applicant’s representative, Pat Cleaver, described the property’s limited developable footprint (roughly 11–13 developable acres after setbacks and easements) and showed photos of existing juniper screening.

Staff recommended an open record period to allow corrections and further written material; the board supported a schedule the parties discussed on the record: new evidence submittals to the record by July 15 (4 p.m.), rebuttal evidence by July 22 (4 p.m.), and the applicant’s final argument by July 29 (4 p.m.). Tentative deliberations were discussed for mid‑ to late August, with staff noting the county is monitoring applicable statutory timelines and would advise if the 120‑day clock applies.

Next steps: the oral hearing was closed and the board left the written record open with the deadlines above. The board will reconvene for deliberations and possible decision according to the schedule staff and parties agreed on.

Authorities and references cited in the hearing included the county’s landscape management ordinances adopted in 1992 and OAR administrative rules governing post‑acknowledgement plan amendments and Goal 5 (referenced in testimony as OAR 660‑023‑0253 and related guidance).