Deschutes County hearing on Lava Terrace winery modification spotlights wastewater, traffic and zoning disputes
Loading...
Summary
At a Feb. 25 public hearing, the Board of County Commissioners heard hours of testimony for and against the Lava Terrace Sellers' modification to operate a tasting room and winery on a 5.43‑acre MUA‑10 parcel near Bend. Applicant counsel cited an ODEQ determination and reduced production; neighbors raised statutory and groundwater concerns. The record was closed and deliberations scheduled for a later date.
A public hearing in Deschutes County on Feb. 25 drew a packed room and hours of testimony over a modification of application from Dina and Duane Barker to operate Lava Terrace as a winery and tasting room in the multiple‑use agricultural (MUA‑10) zone.
Nathaniel Miller, an associate planner with the county, told the Board of County Commissioners the proposal seeks a conditional use permit modification to allow winery production, tastings and limited events at 20520 Bowery Lane. Miller summarized the procedural history, including an earlier hearings officer approval (Jan. 2, 2024) and the applicant’s December 2025 modification filing. He said the modification reduces annual production and changes parking and site layout requirements, and that ODEQ issued a determination letter addressing wastewater management.
Why it matters: supporters say the project advances agritourism and local farm businesses; opponents say it would improperly commercialize a small, groundwater‑reliant neighborhood and might conflict with state land‑use rules.
Representing the applicants, attorney Caroline Selick of Davis Wright Tremaine said the modified application reduces annual production from 2,000 to 1,500 cases, limits tastings to appointment‑only small groups, and includes an updated 2025 site plan and an ODEQ determination that the winery’s production is de minimis and below the 6,000‑case permit threshold. "ODEQ determined that Lava Terrace's wine production level would be de minimis because it is producing 1,500 cases a year and is well below the threshold for any permit required," Selick told the board.
Selick also described coordination with Bend Fire & Rescue and a water‑use and well‑sharing agreement recorded in the county records that she said allows up to 5,000 gallons per day for commercial purposes. She requested the board modify certain conditions from the hearings officer decision — including reducing required parking spaces from 21 to 12 and allowing vineyard trellis posts and vines to be relocated during dormant periods to protect vine health.
Dozens of neighbors and regional wine‑industry figures testified. Supporters — including longtime growers and the president of the Central Oregon Winegrowers Association — praised the Barkers' regenerative farming practices, described the winery as a small operation necessary for the business model, and said ODEQ and fire‑district reviews mitigate environmental and safety concerns. "A 1,500 case winery is very small in the world of winemaking," winemaker Phil Bray told commissioners, arguing wastewater volumes and traffic would be minimal.
Opponents and the appellant pressed legal and technical objections. Appellant Michelle Bayard said state law (ORS 215.452) restricts wineries to exclusive farm use (EFU) lands with larger parcel sizes and argued the on‑site vineyard acreage could not reliably supply the proposed production. She and other neighbors expressed concern about wastewater percolation in porous volcanic soils and potential aquifer impacts. Bayard asked the board to require DEQ permits or to deny the modification; she also said litigation over neighborhood covenants and possible LUBA review is pending.
County technical staff acknowledged the competing issues. Tarek Rawling, senior transportation planner, said the county’s primary safety concern is private property and trellising within the Bowery Lane right‑of‑way and that items in the right‑of‑way must be removed; staff signaled willingness to allow a seasonal deferral to April 30, 2027 for removing vines and posts to avoid damaging plants during dormant periods.
Applicant counsel and the Barkers rebutted opposition testimony, noting the ODEQ determination and the wastewater management plan that relies on totes and iterative treatment and beneficial reuse on the vineyard. "We have been working for a long time to address the concerns that we have heard from neighbors and to refine the applicant's proposal to ensure that not only are we meeting the code, but we feel like we're going above and beyond," Elaine Aldridge, outside counsel for Lava Terrace, said during rebuttal.
What the board did: commissioners discussed procedural options and settled on closing the public hearing record on Feb. 25 and scheduling deliberations at a later date. Staff will prepare a deliberation matrix for the board packet before deliberations. The board did not make a final decision on the modification at the hearing.
Outstanding issues and next steps: opponents flagged state statute citations and the prospect of LUBA review; staff and the applicant pointed to the ODEQ determination and updated site plan materials that remain part of the record. The board closed oral testimony, left the written record status to be managed as specified, and directed staff to prepare the deliberation materials and set a deliberation date. Further appeals or litigation are possible after a decision is issued.
