Archive
Subscribe
Weather
 |
|
 |
|
Wine country hotel dispute heads to appeals court |
By David Sale, Newberg Graphic reporter
E-mail David at
dsale@eaglenewspapers.com
|
DAYTON — The Oregon Court of
Appeals heard opening arguments Tuesday in the latest stage of a
dispute between a Portland developer and local winemakers over a
luxury hotel.
“The key issue in bringing this case to the appeals court is
getting more guidance on what reasons the county can use to create
exemptions from state land use goals,” said attorney Bill Kabeiseman,
who represents the hotel’s opponents.
The proposed 50-room luxury hotel would be sited on the Timmons
property, a 72-acre parcel on Breyman Orchards Road in an area zoned
for exclusive farm use. Developer David Kahn had sought and received
a rezone from the Yamhill County Board of Commissioners in August
2006.
But the Vintners’ Coalition for Economic Progress, an association
of 25 area wineries headed by Jason Lett of Eyrie Vineyards, opposed
the decision to locate such a development outside an existing urban
growth boundary, arguing that it would set a precedent for future
commercial development on valuable farmland.
The commissioners sided in favor of Kahn, finding that the
potential for tourism and economic growth justified the rezone and
constituted an exception from the state land-use planning goals that
would otherwise restrict the property to agricultural use.
The coalition, however, appealed the decision to the state Land Use
Board of Appeals in September 2006, arguing that the land use
planning goals should be upheld.
“You can’t meet all of them — there’s always a tradeoff between
providing housing and preserving open space, for instance,”
Kabeiseman said. “That’s why counties have the authority to create
exemptions, but (unless the property or surrounding area is already
developed), you have to show reasons why an exemption should be
granted. We want more guidance on what’s an adequate reason for the
exemption.”
In Kahn’s rezone request to the county, the application identified
an “idyllic rural setting with expansive views of the surrounding
countryside” as necessary to the success of the hotel as a wine
tourism destination and grounds for an exemption.
The case was remanded March 21 by LUBA to the county for
re-evaluation.
Regarding Kahn’s pursuit of a scenic rural location, the LUBA board
members found that: “In our view, it is not sufficient that a
particular characteristic is merely economically desirable, or is
likely to enhance the economic success of the proposed
development...” for such a rezone to be granted.
LUBA’s decision was “an important element” in the appeal,
Kabeiseman explained.
“Economic development was cited as the reason, but you could make
that argument wherever it’s built,” he said. “It’s a procedural
question: should (exceptions for) economic development be done on a
case-by-case basis, or comprehensively, from a county-wide
standpoint? We feel it shouldn’t be ad hoc, otherwise you could
exempt anything. What if someone else comes along with an even
better site?”
The Court of Appeals will have 91 days to review the documents of
the case, but Kabeiseman said he hopes for a decision before then.
“The end result will almost certainly be a remand back to the county
to rehear the request with new parameters; a more defined idea of
what constitutes a valid exemption,” he said. “The question is: is
this the right way, and do the reasons really justify the use?” |
|
From June 9, 2007,
Newberg Graphic
Click Here to Subscribe |
|
|
|
 |
|
