By Nicole Montesano • Staff Writer • 

Winery appeal, easement use issue continued

Only online subscribers may access this article.

One-day subscriptions available for just $2. Click here for one-day access.

For all other subscription offers, click here.

Already a subscriber, please .

Comments

Oregonian

That property is too small for a tasting room. I thought the county requirement was 15 acres in order to be able to have the public on your property for tasting.

David S. Wall

In my neighborhood, there was a winery, several years ago, that rented a barn on a farm property. This winery bought grapes, made wine and had a tasting room. All winery operations were contained in the barn (except parking). That winery moved several years ago to the Parrett Mountain area.

What is disturbing concerning this case is the use of a "private easement" to support a winery and a "tasting room." This commercial enterprise could easily expand into a restaurant, Bed&Breakfast and have events with amplified music.

The use of a "private easement" to support a commercial enterprise predicated upon Yamhill County Permits amplifies the institutional incompetence of the Yamhill County Board of Commissioners (BOC) for not "updating land use codes" through timely and effective local legislation.

In the mean time, there is an election coming up for BOC Position #2 in 2020. The affected can give a sitting Yamhill Commissioner who is up for re-election, the proverbial "boot."

David S. Wall

David S. Wall

For possible regulatory relief from the winery used in this article read Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS);

471.164 Authority of cities and counties over establishments that offer entertainment or serve alcoholic beverages.

471.166 Local government recommendations on license issuance and renewal; rules; fees.

To reinforce your fear and loathing of the aforementioned winery could wrought upon your neighborhood peace and state of mind read this one;

471.175 Full on-premises sales license. (Wineries can sell "hard-alcohol).

The above is by "no-means" a complete list of remedies to relieve the plight of adjacent owners.

Unfortunately, the adjacent property owners must bear the cost(s) of retaining competent legal counsel to address their concerns and or rights under the law. The "private easement" compounds the problem, Yamhill County could have eliminated the issue with prudent local legislation.

Consider the following;

A person who was drinking "shots of Tequila" with wine-chasers at the aforementioned winery becomes intoxicated, gets behind the wheel of a vehicle and runs over a child (or an adult) in the "private easement" causing injury and or death. Who pays? The Winery? The County Taxpayers (County permits)?

Remember, a "private easement" will not have Yamhill County Sheriff Deputies performing sobriety checks, patrolling or "Busting" DUII drivers.

David S. Wall

Web Design and Web Development by Buildable