Agritourism bill draws strong opposition from farmers and building officials over land-use and safety concerns

Senate Bill 5055 would exempt agricultural buildings used for agritourism activities for six months or less each year from commercial building-code standards, except that life- and fire-safety standards would still apply under the bill as described to the committee.

Michelle Rests, committee staff, summarized the bill’s intent and the existing law around agritourism and comprehensive planning before the committee. She said the bill would exempt some structures used seasonally for agritourism from commercial-code permitting while requiring life- and fire-safety standards.

Sen. Judy Warnick, sponsor, said the bill aims to clarify code requirements for farmers and reduce regulatory burdens that can be barriers for small farm operations seeking to use agritourism to supplement income. “I’m hoping that you will take this under consideration,” Warnick told the committee.

Multiple farm and conservation witnesses opposed the bill in its current form. Mikaela Staples Hughes, a board member of the Western Washington Agricultural Association and a Skagit County farmer, testified: “By prioritizing tourism over agriculture without clearly defining the activities that must be related to soil dependent activity and truly inherently agricultural, this bill continues to undermine Washington’s farmers and weakens our local food system.” She said existing agritourism language has been broadly interpreted to include wedding venues and large events and that the bill risks enabling non‑agricultural commercial uses on farmland.

Ellen Bynum, testifying for a land‑use advocacy perspective, cited a Washington Supreme Court decision (King County v. Friends of Sammamish Valley / Futurewise) to argue that allowing non‑agricultural uses on designated agricultural land can violate the Growth Management Act’s requirement to conserve productive farmland.

Dustin Kurb, managing director of the State Building Code Council, also testified and said a broad exemption could lead to uneven application across jurisdictions and might be read to relieve federal accessibility obligations if the statutory language is not clarified. He suggested adding limiting terms — for example making the exemption apply only to “incidental” agritourism activities — to ensure buildings remain primarily agricultural in character and to maintain uniform life-safety and accessibility outcomes across the state.

Tim Woodward of the Washington Association of Building Officials echoed concerns about unintended consequences and asked for technical amendments to preserve accessibility and other safety protections.

The committee did not vote on SB 5055 at the hearing. Several witnesses offered to provide recommended statutory language to the sponsor and committee staff that would more narrowly tailor exemptions to soil‑dependent or truly agricultural activities and to protect the designation of agricultural lands from conversion to event or hospitality uses.