Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Lawmakers Hear Divided Views on Bill to Clarify Farm‑Store Rules and Agritourism
Loading...
Summary
Supporters say HB 4153 will modernize rules for farm stands and agritourism, preserving farms by allowing diversified on‑farm activities; opponents say dash‑2 amendments would open EFU land to commercial retail, remove county review and price out beginning farmers.
A House committee on agriculture heard nearly three hours of public testimony on House Bill 4153, a proposal that backers say will standardize farm‑store and agritourism rules statewide and opponents say would erode protections for Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) land.
Proponents, including family farmers and county staff, told the committee the bill would bring clarity and flexibility. “This bill is stability, flexibility, trust, and appreciation towards diversifying family farms,” said Emily Iverson, who said her family’s wooden‑shoe tulip festival attracts more than 150,000 visitors annually and that removing the income restriction would help farms adapt. Clackamas County Commissioner Diana Helm urged the committee to move the bill forward, saying it “is a great first step toward modernizing land use regulations to reflect these realities.”
Opponents cautioned that the dash‑2 amendment’s changes to eligibility and event definitions would weaken the farm‑first purpose of EFU zoning. “The bill allows large permanent multi‑use structures for nonfarm retail sales, food, beverage service, and unlimited events on agricultural land without safeguards to ensure the agricultural use remains the primary use,” said Jim Johnson of 1000 Friends of Oregon. Rory Isbell of Central Oregon Land Watch told the committee the measure creates “competing and directly conflicting agritourism paths,” increasing confusion for farmers and county planners.
Several witnesses raised specific technical concerns about the dash‑2 amendment: the removal or weakening of a farm‑impacts test that helps protect neighboring farms; new acreage and production thresholds that witnesses said would exclude micro‑farms; and language that could be interpreted to permit structures up to 10,000 square feet for retail and events. Small‑farm owners urged lowering minimum income or acreage thresholds so beginning farms are not shut out of permitting.
Others representing farm advocacy groups said the bill protects existing permitted farm stands and clarifies that commonplace roadside stands selling agricultural crops do not require land‑use approval. Samantha Bear, carrying a clarification letter from the Oregon Department of Agriculture and DLCD, told the committee that existing permitted operations would be grandfathered and that the cottage foods exemption relates to ODA licensing rather than land use.
Committee members were also told the proposal has generated heavy public attention and extensive written testimony; multiple witnesses urged more deliberation or rulemaking rather than rushing statutory changes in a short session.
The committee closed the public hearing on HB 4153 after hearing numerous farmers, county planners and conservation groups and moved on to other bills. No vote was taken during the hearing.
The next procedural step for HB 4153 is for committee members to consider amendments or advance the bill; proponents and opponents suggested both legislative fixes and agency rulemaking could address outstanding implementation questions.
