Oregon Legislature approves ‘farm store’ proposal with bipartisan majority

Published 2:43 pm Friday, March 6, 2026

SALEM — A bill creating more flexible rules for “farm stores” in Oregon agricultural zones has passed the Legislature with a strong bipartisan majority.

Under House Bill 4153, “farm stores” of up to 10,000 square feet would face less stringent restrictions on sales of prepared foods and retail merchandise than currently allowed for “farm stands.”

For example, tents, canopies and similar structures could be used more broadly for agritourism activities, rather than strictly for the sale of crops, as required by existing law.

Also, up to 25% of a farm store’s space could be devoted to incidental retail items, such as gifts and branded apparel, rather than the current limit of 25% of its income, which HB 4153’s supporters say is difficult to enforce.

The bill, which passed the House by 40-14 on March 4 and the Senate by 21-8 on March 6, must still be signed by Gov. Tina Kotek, but she was a supporter of the legislation.

Pros and cons

Supporters argue that HB 4153 clarifies ambiguities in land use law that have led to contradictory interpretations by county governments, but claim the bill will still keep agriculture as the primary use of farmland.

“A farm store permit can’t be used as a loophole for ‘paper farms’ wanting to create standalone commercial event venues or retail stores,” said Rep. Vikki Breese Iverson, R-Prineville, the bill’s chief sponsor.

When the bill was introduced last month, critics argued the new “farm store” rules were lax enough to allow for a variety of inappropriate retail operations on farmland.

The proposal’s supporters have countered that it defines “agritourism” narrowly enough to prohibit the extreme examples cited by opponents, while still allowing growers to diversify their incomes.

“It is very unlikely that a strip club or lingerie store or indoor BMX facility that you heard about will be allowed to happen,” said Samantha Bayer, general counsel for the Oregon Property Owners Association, which supports HB 4153.

Despite an amendment to the bill, detractors claim it still lacks sufficient “guard rails” to prevent retail and entertainment from becoming the dominant uses on properties with farm stores.

“This far surpassed simplifying and streamlining existing law. This is creating huge carve-outs for commercial activities on exclusive farm use land,” said Rep. Mark Gamba, D-Milwaukie.

Specifically, farm stores could be built on properties with more 80 acres if at least 45 acres are dedicated to agriculture, while smaller operations have other thresholds.

Conceivably, that provision could allow non-agricultural uses on 385 acres on the average 430-acre farm in Oregon, according to critics.

“It has the potential to make farming secondary to retail and commercial use,” said Rep. Susan McLain, D-Forest Grove.

Supporters argued that such outcomes are unlikely because landowners would not want to lose the farm deferrals that allow for lower property taxes on tracts with active agricultural operations.

The bill’s proponents also note that existing permits for “farm stands” do not have any minimum agricultural acreage requirements.

Critics likewise alleged that HB 4135 will allow “commercial speculative development” to drive up the value of farmland, making it affordable only for those with “massive capital” instead of working farmers.

“The future of Oregon farmland will belong only to the rich,” said Rep. Thuy Tran, D-Portland.

Lawmakers who supported the bill noted that further revisions will still be possible if HB 4135 has unintended consequences, but at this point, it appears to strike the right balance between farm protections and economic opportunities.

Rep. Ken Helm, D-Beaverton, said he realized the bill was “not perfect,” but urged lawmakers to recognize the political realities at work.

Land use advocates must “bend not break” and adapt to changing times, as they “can’t just come to the Legislature and say, ‘hold the line,’ again,” he said.

Supporters of more flexible agritourism rules have built a powerful “network” in opposition to regulatory changes proposed last year, and ultimately “sent up a flare” that convinced Gov. Tina Kotek to cancel that rule-making, he said.

Now, that network effectively has the “groundwork laid” for a ballot initiative campaign that could result in legal changes that are far more permissive than HB 4135, he said.

“That could very well happen if we don’t pass this bill,” Helm said.