Deschutes County commissioners revisit three land-use decisions with 2-1 votes, sparking more Chang-DeBone clashes

Chang asks for his name to be removed from Comprehensive Plan update

BEND, Ore. (KTVZ) – Three recent split land-use decisions by Deschutes County commissioners came back before them for another round Wednesday afternoon, the next step in the formal approval or denial process, bringing a renewed clash between Phil Chang on the losing end and colleague Tony DeBone.

Commission Chair Patti Adair also weighed in, in a more limited fashion, before voting with DeBone as commissioners first held the first reading of an ordinance again approving a zone change for 710 acres west of Terrebonne for 71 10-acre lots, after an initial approval was appealed to the state Land Use Board of Appeals, which returned it to the county for more work and details.

Chang said “I don’t feel we did an accurate job” of considering the impacts of such a zone change, and noted that it could again come before us if opponents appeal the revised approval.

DeBone said he believed the county was “forced” into creating land-use policies due to a lack of clarity that lawmakers could clarify.

“This is the sharp, sharp edge of Oregon land use, right here,” DeBone said, while Adair said it “clearly is a rocky hillside.”

Adair said, “I think we’ve done an excellent job analyzing” the details of the rezone and issues raised by LUBA, adding: “If it comes back, so be it.”

One issue LUBA asked the county to address is whether the property, despite low soil quality, could be used by neighboring landowners for agricultural purposes, such as grazing. When Adair noted neighbors of the land did not move to use it for that purpose, Chang said, “It’s pretty hard to afford land when it’s driven up by speculation” for other uses.

Commissioners also voted 2-1 for a second reading and adoption of the county’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan update.

DeBone said he was pleased with the product, but Chang said there was “a tremendous amount of feedback not reflected” in the document. In fact, he asked for his name to be removed from the document, which his colleagues did not agree to.

(Chang said was told by county legal counsel Kim Riley it's possible they could remove his name from the plan through an administrative process. "I am not quite sure what that looks like, but I trust our legal counsel to do things by the book," he told us.)

At one point in their discussion, DeBone told Chang he wasn't trying to argue with him, just asking to better understand his reasoning, to which Chang replied: "I've spent four months trying to explain," to no avail.

DeBone said Chang was voicing the views of a “small number of activists who want to stop development. Are you truly a believer the world is going to come to an end due to climate change?”

Chang said the “vast majority, hundreds of comments are in line with the comments I made,” while “a small minority” agreed with what he called DeBone’s “provocative statements.”

DeBone replied, “Some people like to use the public process to swing a big bat and try to change the world.” But he again said he sees “balance” in what was approved, speaking in general about not basing decisions on “a hundred angry people sitting in front of us,” but all county residents.

Chang countered that claiming to represent those who don’t show up and are not following the process is “incredibly cynical and undemocratic. I do believe we need to grow, but I believe we need to grow well.”

He spoke of addressing the need for more workforce housing, not by allowing “10-acre luxury low-density residential housing.”

“This plan does not encourage good stewardship and efficient use of our land,” Chang said.

The Comprehensive Plan update takes effect year’s end, unless an appeal is filed within 21 days.

Commissioners also approved and repeated their 2-1 vote to a hearings officer’s denial of a proposed psilocybin service facility at the Juniper Preserve resort, formerly Pronghorn.

A key issue the hearings officer raised in the denial appealed to the board was transporting federally illegal psychedelic mushrooms across BLM land that could jeopardize the resort’s right-of-way access agreement with the agency. Chang disagreed on the access issue and sided with appellants who noted that those materials are frequently transported on highways across federal lands without legal repercussions.