Dam appeal decision delayed; appellant questions public process rather than proposal

The Yamhill County Board of Commissioners heard an appeal of a proposed dam on Stoller Vineyards property outside Newberg Thursday, but delayed a ruling at the request of the appellant.

Appellant Karyn Hanson said she’s not opposed to Stoller’s plans to build a dam and reservoir on property at 15110 N.E. Quarry Road, but wants the county to fol low its conditional permit process for the project.

Red Hills Farm LLC (owned by Stoller) applied in February for a conditional use permit for a 400-foot-long dam ranging from 14.5 to 29 feet tall. A hearing was held where several neighbors objected to the plan.

Following a continuance of the hearing, Planning Director Ken Friday agreed with an interpretation by a Stoller attorney Steve Pfeiffer that because the reservoir is strictly for irrigation it falls under the definition of farm use for lands in the agriculture-forestry zone with a 20-acre minimum lot size, which doesn’t require a conditional permit.

Hanson appealed that ruling, arguing the conditional use process is still required under county rules and is needed to allow for public input and to address possible impacts of the project.

“I do not oppose this reservoir, I simply want an appropriate public process which identifies the potential adverse impacts and respects the input of those most likely to be impacted,” Hanson told the board. “I did not believe that there was enough information (at the hearing) for either the planning staff or the public to find for or against the project.”

Stoller Vice President of Vineyard Operations Jason Tosch said the reservoir is need ed to accommodate vineyard expansion and will be used only to collect surface water for irrigation during winter months.

“The pond would be filled in the winter and it would not affect the surrounding properties,” Tosch said.

Despite the outright approval, the project would still need approval from various government agencies that oversee the creation of reservoirs, Tosch said.

“We would follow all of the steps required by them as we did with our last project in the area,” he said.

Hanson’s attorney Greg Hathaway cited the county’s zoning ordinance, which states that uses are permitted in the AF-20 zone, subject to “any other applicable provisions,” which he argued includes the conditional use process.

“The question is what other provisions in this code might apply to this proposed water reservoir?” Hathaway asked. “That’s where the disagreement is, whether your code specifically requires those decisions to go through a conditional use process.”

Hathaway asked that the appeal be grant ed, which would require Stoller to file a new permit application, according to Friday.

“We’d just like for them to finish what they started,” Hathaway said. “The public deserves the county to hold a process that will clearly evaluate what is being proposed here.”

Several other neighbors spoke with simi lar points, arguing there isn’t enough information about the project to allow it to move forward.

Pfeiffer said the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals has confirmed that irrigation constitutes farm use three times in cases over the years and county code is clear about permitted uses in AF-20 zones.

“Like it or not, for good or bad, we have what we have and your predecessors adopt ed a code,” Pfeiffer told the board. “Much of what you’ve heard today is what people wish that code would say.

“An irrigation operation … that provides irrigation to agricultural production on that site is a farm use. That means you’re pro hibited from interpreting your code to apply any additional restrictions. That means the only way the code can be read is…that conditional uses for reservoirs can only be applied and required in instances where the irrigation facility is not a farm use.”

Hathaway asked for a continuance on the appeal hearing to review documents sub mitted by Pfeiffer the previous night.

Board members didn’t discuss the testimony before unanimously approving a continuance.

The record for the case will be open for additional testimony until July 25, after which it will remain open for rebuttal until Aug. 1. Following that date, the applicants will have until Aug. 8 to present final arguments and the hearing will continue at the Aug. 15 board meeting, according to Friday.

Also at the meeting, the board delayed awarding $125,000 in grant funding for a third time, opting for a work session next week to review statutes governing this disbursement of grant funds.

The board unanimously appointed Paulette Alexandria as interim county treasurer following the resignation of Kris Bledsoe last month. Alexandria will serve in the role until an elected official takes office next January. If no one files for the position, the board will need to appoint a treasurer, according to Friday.