(NVR) - Napa County Planning Commissioners again found themselves confronted with a winery asking to have unauthorized work made legal, as well as seeking an exception to the county’s road setback rule.

They again found themselves involved in a marathon session, in this case three hours long. And that proved too little time Wednesday to decide the case of Summers Estate Winery near Calistoga.

Commissioners wrestled with granting after-the-fact approval for a tasting room relocated from the winery to a house. They leaned toward allowing the winery to have more visitors and make more wine.

They had different opinions on allowing the winery to build a tank farm nearer to the road than the county normally allows.

Part of the problem is the Planning Commission finds itself in between the way the county has enforced rules in the past and the tougher approach that the county seems to be moving toward. Meanwhile, the commission must make decisions in the present.

“Today, some very important and timely perspectives have been expressed,” Commissioner Michael Basayne said as the meeting and its long public comments section drew toward a close.

Summers Estate Winery is at 1171 Tubbs Lane near Calistoga. The county became aware of the illegal tasting room in the house in 2013 after the winery sought a use permit change involving another, minor matter. That led to the winery working with the county to try to make the tasting room legal.

Winery owner Jim Summers said the tasting room story “almost sounds like a comedy of errors.” He explained how fruit flies at the old, permitted tasting room at the winery led to the tastings being moved farther away to a patio, an arbor and eventually into the house.

Napa County typically approaches after-the-fact approval requests by considering whether the unauthorized use would be approved if proposed for the first time. Using that standard, county staff recommended the commission grant the tasting room after-the-fact approval.

Cio Perez of the Napa County Farm Bureau has a different view regarding applicants seeking to make illegal uses legal. He wants the county to enforce existing use permits for a period of time — maybe five years — before considering modifications.

“That (after-the-fact approvals policy) to me is something that shouldn’t be encouraged and in the past it has been,” Perez told commissioners. “We have an opportunity today to change this.”

Commissioner Terry Scott noted that the county Agricultural Protection Advisory Committee (APAC) recommended wineries comply with existing use permits for a year before seeking approval for unauthorized uses. But the APAC ideas have yet to go the county Board of Supervisors.

“You’re asking us to enforce a policy that doesn’t currently exist,” Scott said.

“No,” Perez said. “Actually I’m asking you to enforce what should be required, which is compliance with the existing permit.”

Jeff Redding, a private consultant with Land Use Planning Services, spoke after several speakers echoed what Perez had said.

“I don’t want to portray us as victims,” he said. “We did convert the tasting room inappropriately without permits … our bad. There’s no way to excuse that. Nor will I try to.”

For two years, the Summers have followed the rules to try to resolve the issue, Redding said. He noted the changing atmosphere that has placed winery rule issues in a different light.

“I really would object to the Summers being used as a poster child,” he said.