Yamhill County approves limited alcohol sales at two farm stands after LUBA remand

The Yamhill County Board of Commissioners voted unanimously Aug. 21 to allow the sale of locally produced wine, beer, cider and other malt beverages at two farm stands, with a condition that such sales remain under 24.9% of total annual farm-stand sales.

The decision resolves a remand from the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), which required the county to adopt findings or conditions showing that alcohol sales at the stands would be a secondary use subordinate to farm uses and an existing farm-stand operation. The board adopted staff’s recommended condition to limit local alcohol sales to less than 24.9% of annual farm-stand revenue and instructed the applicant to assist with drafting findings.

County planner Lance gave the staff report, noting the consolidated hearing covered two dockets for farm stands at 15713 Highway 47 and 15250 Northwest Panther Creek Road and that the only issue on remand was whether sales of fermented beverages “will be a secondary use that is in conjunction with the primary use on the property.” The staff relied on state rule definitions and recommended a condition limiting alcohol sales to ensure subordination.

Mark Hoyt, attorney for the applicant, told the board the issue is narrow and legal precedent does not require a nexus between production on a particular parcel and the products sold. Hoyt said the applicant proposed a condition more restrictive than state law requires — limiting alcohol sales under the conditional-use permit to 24.9% of farm-stand sales, which combined with the farm-stand incidental-sales cap would leave no more than 49.9% of incidental or alcohol sales overall. Hoyt argued hours restrictions were unnecessary and that the rural locations make convenience-store style sales unlikely.

Sid Friedman, speaking for Friends of Yamhill County, urged denial or much tighter limits, saying the record shows only minimal farm production on one parcel and that there is no evidence of farm-stand sales totals to demonstrate that alcohol sales would remain subordinate. Friedman read passages from the LUBA decision that required the county to adopt findings or conditions assuring subordination and proposed a 5% cap and specified hours of sale if the board approved any alcohol sales.

Commissioners discussed vesting and whether a farm stand had been substantially completed at one site; staff said the vesting/establishment question is a separate administrative determination that would need to be resolved before the county could sign off for OLCC (Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission) certification. Staff also noted an existing condition requiring alcohol sales occur within an existing farm-stand building would operate as a safeguard until required permits and conversions are final.

After deliberation, a commissioner moved to approve staff’s recommendation; the motion passed unanimously. The board asked the applicant’s attorney to assist with drafting the necessary findings; Hoyt agreed to help and the board set a short timeframe for completion. The approval does not allow implementation of alcohol sales until any required conversion permits are completed and verified by staff as part of OLCC sign-off.

The board’s action addresses the narrow remand from LUBA; it did not reopen review of unrelated vesting or broader operational decisions, which staff said would be handled through existing permit and substantial-construction review processes.