In a recent government meeting, the board convened to address an appeal concerning the approval of an irrigation reservoir intended for a vineyard operated by Red Hills Farm, LLC. The appeal was filed by Karen Hanson, who contested the planning director's decision.

The meeting began with a motion to dismiss the appeal, presented by attorney Steve Pfeiffer on behalf of Red Hills Farm. Pfeiffer argued that the appeal was filed late, exceeding the 15-day deadline stipulated by county code. He emphasized that the decision was made on April 25, and the appeal should have been filed by May 10 or 11, depending on the interpretation of business days. The appeal was ultimately filed on May 13, which Pfeiffer claimed rendered it untimely and beyond the board's jurisdiction.

In response, Greg Hathaway, representing Hanson, provided context regarding the appeal's filing. He noted that the planning director had communicated the deadline clearly, stating that the appeal was accepted by the county and scheduled for hearing, which he argued supported the validity of the appeal based on longstanding county practices.

After deliberation, the board voted to deny the motion to dismiss, allowing the appeal to proceed. The planning director, Ken Friday, then outlined the legal requirements for the hearing, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the standards for approval and the implications of raising issues during the hearing.

The board's decision to proceed with the appeal reflects a commitment to uphold procedural fairness and the established practices of the county, despite the legal arguments presented regarding the timeliness of the appeal. The meeting underscored the complexities of land use regulations and the critical role of public hearings in addressing community concerns, particularly regarding environmental impacts such as groundwater protection.