Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Polk County board refers winery land-use appeal LUD 26-12 to hearings officer
Summary
The board voted to set a public hearing before the Polk County hearings officer on an appeal over whether a winery authorized under LUD 12-16 remains compliant after proposed property-line adjustments that would reduce the parcel from 40 acres to 9.3 acres; staff cited zoning criteria requiring 15 acres of vineyard or equivalent contract.
Hannah Brickner, senior planner with the Polk County Community Development Department, told the Board of Commissioners that the county received a land-use application (LUD 26-12) asking the county to verify that a winery authorized under planning file LUD 12-16 would continue to comply with its conditions after two proposed property-line adjustments.
"The property line adjustments would reduce the subject property from 40 acres to 9.3 acres," Brickner said, and she added that Polk County's winery criteria require a minimum of 15 acres of vineyard owned by the winery or a long-term contract to purchase grapes from a continuous vineyard. Brickner said the planning director issued a decision on 06/22/2026 concluding that the winery use would not continue to comply with the conditions of LUD 12-16 following the proposed adjustments without additional evidence.
Brickner said a timely appeal was submitted by the applicant, which alleges the decision is contrary to state law and interferes with the applicant's right to continue winery operations. Citing Polk County zoning ordinance section 1 11 2 80, Brickner told the board that the ordinance requires the board to determine the appropriate hearing body for an appeal and that, because the matter is technical and not countywide policy, staff recommended the appeal be scheduled before the Polk County hearings officer.
A commissioner moved to adopt staff's recommendation to set the public hearing before the Polk County hearings officer; the motion was seconded and the board voted 'Aye' and the motion carried. The board did not set a hearing date during this meeting; staff will schedule and notice the hearing before the hearings officer.
