Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/06/2013

Home

May 10, 2013 I Volume 7 I Issue 9 Zoning Bulletin sible under ORS 215.283(2)(a). The court said that "the type of activity proposed [was] not necessarily the determining factor." Rather, "to be 'in conjunction with farm use,' the commercial activity must enhance the fanning enterprises of the local agricultural community to which the EFU land hosting that commercial activity relates." As long as the commercial use assisted farmers in processing and marketing crops and encouraged people to visit the area and buy the produce of the vineyards and surrounding farms, the commercial use could be permis- sible under ORS 215.283(2)(a), concluded the court. Nevertheless, the court acknowledged that not all commercial activi- ties tied to the marketing of wine would be allowable as a fawn -use - related commercial activity in connection with a vineyard operation. Rather, the court said that "any commercial activity beyond the direct processing and selling of wine must, to be approved as a commercial activity in conjunction with the farm use of viticulture, be both `incidental' and subordinate to the processing and selling activities of the winery." Here, the court agreed with LUBA that the County's approval of 44 events annually and a commercial kitchen at the Stoller Winery came "dangerously close to creating a scenario in which the incidental and secondary activities (events and food service) overtake the primary activity (the processing and selling of wine)." However, the court also concluded that the County approval of Stoller's CUP application fell within the scope of ORS 215.283(2)(a) since the approval imposed conditions that were "designed to ensure that the event and food -service activities would] remain incidental and secondary to the processing and sale of wine." Specifically, here, the County had required that the 44 events be "directly related to" the sale and promotion of wine produced at the winery. In addition, income from the approved non - wine -related activity could not exceed 25% of the gross income from onsite retail sales of wine from the winery. Moreover, the ability to provide meal service was limited to the 44 events, and the onsite kitchen could not serve more than 72 guests per event. Stoller was required to submit an annual report demonstrating that it was meeting the imposed conditions. Moreover, here, Stoller's event and food - service activities were intended to promote Stoller wines and could be reasonably expected to enhance Stoller's wine marketing. In short, the activities would "reinforce the profitability of operations and the likeli- hood that agricultural use of the land will continue," concluded the court. See also: Craven v. Jackson County, 94 Or. App. 49, 764 P.2d 931 (1988), decision aff'd, 308 Or. 281, 779 P.2d 1011 (1989). 10 ©2013 Thomson Reuters