New limits would be imposed on “home occupations” in Oregon agricultural zones under updated farm protection rules being considered by state land-use regulators.

Hair salons, veterinary clinics, funeral homes and other home occupations are already the most common non-agricultural uses allowed within the state’s exclusive farm use zones.

In recent years, though, certain lodging businesses have raised concerns among neighboring growers and farmland preservation advocates, who say they surpass what was originally envisioned under home occupation permits.

“Basically, you’re getting a small hotel in the EFU zone that really isn’t allowed under land-use law,” said Blair Batson, staff attorney for the 1000 Friends of Oregon nonprofit. “You’re getting the tail wagging the dog, where the commercial use is primary. Let’s put that genie back into the bottle.”

Dec. 5 vote planned

Tighter restrictions for home occupations are being deliberated by the Land Conservation and Development Commission, which is scheduled to vote on the change as part of a broader regulatory proposal on Dec. 5.

Critics of the proposal say revisions that inhibit side-businesses would be counterproductive, as farm operations are more likely to survive if they’re diversified.

“All around Oregon, farms are using agritourism to supplement their income so they can continue farming their land,” said Peter Kessinger, whose family owns a pumpkin patch near Portland, Ore. “How can you help me and others like me stay in farming?”

Under the rule revisions, home occupations couldn’t exceed the size of similar on-farm businesses permitted under other land-use statutes.

Certain businesses can be established in farm zones under specific standards of Oregon land-use law, such as manufacturing cider from local fruit, but they can also be developed under the more general rules for home occupations.

Home occupations would also need to be secondary to residential uses in farm zones, which is meant to discourage purchases by people who don’t plan to farm or live on the properties.

Investors buying land

“There are clearly a growing number of investor groups buying up land, planning to leverage it for tourism,” said Kathryn Jernstedt, president of the Friends of Yamhill County nonprofit, during a recent hearing. “These uses need to be sited in cities and towns that would benefit from such investment.”

Aside from potentially disrupting nearby farming practices, on-farm lodging businesses are accused of inflating the cost of farmland beyond the reach of new and beginning growers.

Young farmers are frequently outbid by investors hoping to develop high-end lodging facilities on rural properties, said Alana Kenagy, a grower from Benton County, during the hearing.

“It’s no longer something that people in their thirties can afford,” she said.

Lodging businesses are also blamed for aggravating housing shortages in rural areas, as tourists can effectively outcompete local employees with modest incomes.

“If you’re allowing them to become hotels, you’re displacing some of the farmworker housing base,” said Batson of 1000 Friends.

The proposed limits on home occupations and certain other rule changes are opposed by farmers who advocate for increasing agritourism.

If land-use regulations are meant to protect farmland, LCDC shouldn’t be hindering business ventures that help growers augment their earnings from crops and livestock, which are often volatile due to unpredictable weather and prices, critics say.

“I need forms of income that are not subjected to the same risks as my primary agriculture revenue,” said Nina Sackett Kronberg, a poultry farmer near Corbett, Ore.

The rule change wouldn’t entirely prevent the development of larger businesses in farm zones, as they could still be permitted under separate land-use rules for “commercial activities in conjunction with farm use.”

The proposal before LCDC would require a stronger direct connection between such commercial activities and agricultural uses in farm zones.

Other revisions

Regulatory language affecting agritourism events, transportation facilities, private parks on farmland and income thresholds for certain activities would also be revised under the proposal.

Finally, court rulings pertaining to land-use law would be codified in state regulations, which is meant to dispel confusion among county planners about how to interpret the rules.

Critics say aspects of the proposal undervalue the economic contributions of agritourism, which Oregon State University has found generates more than $350 million in annual sales and employs nearly 11,000 workers in the state.

“Yet there is a constant fear from us that these land-use laws, as they stand today, could lead to our operations being shut down,” said Kessinger, the pumpkin grower near Portland.

Beyond the proposal’s specifics, critics say the concept was formed with too little input from farmers who rely on agritourism and side-businesses to make ends meet.

LCDC should postpone a vote on the proposal until it’s re-evaluated to include the perspectives of such growers, said Scottie Jones, a sheep farmer who offers on-farm lodging near Alsea, Ore.

“Please slow down with a more diverse set of agricultural voices, because you’re only hearing one side,” she said.