Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Home Occupations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee hears broad support for tightening "home occupation" rules on farmland
Summary
The Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Wildfire opened a public hearing March 6 on Senate Bill 77, which would narrow allowable "home occupation" activities on land zoned for farming and forestry, with proponents saying the measure would block hotels and large event venues from operating on high-value agricultural land.
Salem, March 6 — The Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Wildfire opened public testimony on Senate Bill 77 on Thursday, a measure that would narrow what counts as a "home occupation" on land zoned for farm or forest use.
The bill was the focus of hours of testimony during a public hearing that the committee opened for three related measures. Proponents said SB 77 would close a loophole that allows large commercial enterprises—including hotels and event venues—to operate on high-value agricultural land under the guise of a home occupation.
Why it matters: Witnesses from farm and conservation organizations argued that expanded nonfarm uses inflate land prices and undermine working lands. Jim Johnson, working lands policy director for 1000 Friends of Oregon, told the committee, "The Oregon legislature never intended for the home occupation provision to be used to permit hotels, restaurants, and event venues with little or no connection to the home or the homeowner." Johnson said the bill would restore the original intent by requiring that a business be "incidental, accessory and subordinate to the use of the dwelling as a home."
Farmers and industry groups gave local examples. Jason Lett, owner-operator of Irie Vineyards, described large luxury homes converted into hospitality operations on high-value farmland, saying a resort in Yamhill County was "approved as a home occupation" and later operated as a hotel and vineyard. Multiple family farmers, including Jackie MacGwood and Larry Dyke, told the committee that developers can outbid farmers for small parcels and then use home-occupation allowances to create commercial hospitality uses that drive up surrounding land prices and create conflicts with farm operations.
Supporters also included county and conservation organizations. Jan Lee, president of the Oregon Association of Conservation Districts, said the bills would "support continuing conservation by curtailing the displacement of essential working lands." Phoebe Autry of Oregon Agricultural Trust told the panel that "speculative inflation of farmland values" is a principal driver of fragmentation and that SB 77 would address one of those drivers.
Opponents urged caution about broad, prescriptive limits. Brandon Persinger of the Association of Oregon Counties said several provisions in the draft are unclear and difficult to enforce, citing ambiguity over limits such as "5 unrelated persons" or a maximum of "3 client vehicles" and whether county code officers could or should enforce those restrictions. Jody Hack, speaking for the Oregon Home Builders Association and the Oregon Realtors, said stakeholders had been negotiating and urged additional hearings to allow more voices to testify. Scottie Jones, a Benton County sheep farmer who runs guests on her farm as supplemental income, said limiting home-occupation size or requiring the owner to live in the dwelling would harm small farm enterprises: "If you protect farmland, I totally believe in protecting farmland, but if you don't protect the farmer, then what's gonna happen...we're gonna lose them."
Clarifying details available in the hearing record: staff summarized SB 77 as adding provisions to allowable home occupations and parking conditions on exclusive farm use, forest use, or mixed farm-and-forest land; the staff summary and multiple witnesses noted that the proposal aims to prevent the conversion of farm dwellings into commercial hospitality operations.
What's next: The committee held an open public hearing but did not take a final vote on SB 77. Several witnesses submitted or said they would submit written testimony for the record. The committee asked that written testimony be accepted until noon on Saturday; staff were available to help submit materials.
Ending note: Testimony on SB 77 was part of a grouped hearing that also covered SB 78 (replacement-dwelling size limits) and SB 788 (event and wedding venues east of the Cascades). The committee closed public testimony for the three bills at the end of the session and adjourned the March 6 hearing without a vote.
