Proposal to create rural housing development zones launches broad discussion on farmland protections and local flexibility

House Bill 3,928, which would authorize counties to designate land for rural housing development subject to restrictions, generated an extended public hearing focused on balancing housing supply with protection of farmland and ranchland.

Representative Vicki Breece Iverson opened the hearing by framing the bill as a tool to create housing opportunities outside urban growth boundaries in locations that are not productive farmland or forest land. She described the bill's framework as permitting up to 1-acre lots in designated rural housing zones, requiring that land not be productive farmland or forest, and allowing shared infrastructure or self-contained systems such as community wells, septic or onsite renewables.

Sen. Todd Nash (R) and other rural officials described large amounts of underutilized land in eastern and central Oregon and urged counties to have more local authority to designate appropriate rural housing areas. Samantha Behr of the Oregon Property Owners Association and the Oregon Home Builders Association testified in favor, saying that the state faces widespread underproduction of housing and that some privately held land currently designated as agricultural or forestry is never going to be used for commercial production.

Supporters emphasized the need for a framework to expand housing options while preserving productive farmland; Samantha Behr urged the committee to address both the limited land supply inside UGBs and barriers to development outside them. Several witnesses suggested planning safeguards — for example, continued application of right-to-farm protections for existing agricultural operations so that new rural neighbors understand operational realities and to reduce nuisance claims.

The governor's housing and homelessness initiative director, Matthew Schawbold, said the governor had no position on the bill but appreciated the need for a framework to facilitate discussions about where additional housing could be sited without undermining land-use goals.

Committee members asked about the potential for new conflicts between rural residents and agricultural operations and how to protect farmers from nuisance claims; witnesses proposed upfront disclosures, right-to-farm acknowledgments on deeds, and planning buffers as possible safeguards. The committee did not conclude the hearing; it indicated the topic will be continued at a future meeting.