The approval of Deschutes County
But the following day the Deschutes County Planning Commission discussed the county’s potential role in regulating activities and events associated with the winery.
The answers, commissioners and county staff acknowledged, are not clear cut and assistant county attorney Laurie Craghead was instructed to further research state law related to wineries on land zoned for Exclusive Farm Use.
County planning director Nick Lelack and Craghead both explained to commissioners that hearing officer Karen Green’s decision approving the winery could not be modified.
 |
| Faith Hope & Charity vineyard Lower Bridge Way in Terrebonne |
The county planning staff had initally concluded that the Grossmanns’ existing Faith Hope & Charity 15-acre vineyard did not qualify as a vineyard in that grapes have yet to be produced. As their vineyard matures the Grossmanns have purchased on contract grapes from nearby Monkey Face Vineyard in Terrebonne that are being made into wine at a Medford
Following a March hearing by Green, planning commissioner James Powell had written to the planning staff raising issues related to traffic and access to the winery site during special events, which are authorized under an amendment to the winery legislation.
But Craghead pointed out that no comments by county staff could be added to the record “ex parte” after the March public hearing,” explaining that any county staff involvement after the hearing “opens them up to claims of bias.”
Powell said his concern was “not about the winery per se” but that the winery approval under state law “lacked any oversight of local jurisdiction.” Among the issues he cited were access for emergency vehicles and regulation of food service and the county’s authority over the “timing and magnitude of events.”
Powell acknowledged that the Grossmanns have made a “huge investment and we would like to see that recaptured.” However, in the future Powell said he’d like to see the county develop a policy addressing events “that would be applicable across the county including wineries” while recognizing the need to support landowners attempting to derive income on farmlands.
Craghead said she would, “study this to see how we can restrict events. It’s a state statute and we’re limited on what we can regulate.”
“I don’t think we have the same authority to regulate it as we would, for example, a public park.”
Lelack explained that the issue events at wineries on farmlands is separate from those at non-winery venues. There are several bills in the legislature to address the events issue, including one that would exempt wineries approved prior to the bill. He termed the legislative process, with amendments being added to bills, “a quickly moving target.”
Lelack pointed out that the hearing officer’s decision on the Grossmanns’ winery included conditions which the county could address as needed under its code enforcement authority.
Although some neighbors may be concerned about events at the winery, Lelack emphasized the operation is an “outright permitted use. There’s no consideration for compatibility” (with neighboring uses).
“There’s no question that should code enforcement be an issue it’s going to be very, very difficult.” Lelack concluded.
