Since we announced HB 4153, we’ve been answering some great questions from the community. We put this guide together to show how this bill helps Oregon’s family farms open their gates to the public for education, fun, and fresh food.

Still have questions? Reach out at: info@oregonpropertyowners.org

What is HB 4153 and why do farmers want it?

Oregon’s current land-use laws are stuck in the 1970s. Right now, it’s legally difficult for a farmer to do anything other than grow crops and livestock. HB 4153 changes that, making it easier for farmers to open and operate farm stores— vibrant spaces where the public can come to learn about agriculture, enjoy rural experiences, and buy directly from the person who grew their food.

Why do farmers even need permits to have farm stores or host on-farm experiences?

Under “Exclusive Farm Use” (EFU) zoning, “farming” is strictly defined under Oregon law as the activities necessary to plant, harvest, and raise animals for a profit. Anything else— like selling merchandise, hosting a pickling class or a harvest festival— is labeled a “non-farm use”, which requires special permits regulated by state and local law.

What are the current limits on farm stores that farmers want to change?

Existing laws have created some truly strange roadblocks for farms that want to host visitors at their farm store:

• The “No Shelter” Penalty: Current rules are so strict that even a temporary tent or canopy is considered a farm store “structure”. Under current law, these structures cannot be used for “banquets” or “public gatherings”. This means that if it starts raining during a farm-to-table dinner, a farmer can actually get a permit violation just for moving guests inside the farm store or under a tent to keep them dry.

• Banning the Fun: Because “entertainment” is prohibited in and on farm structures, many counties have interpreted this to mean that kids’ play structures— like hay bale slides, corn kernel pits, or climbing areas — are illegal.

• The High-Pressure Sales Pitch: Right now, the law requires every fee-based activity to “promote the sale of farm crops.” This forces farmers to act like pushy salespeople. A farmer could get in trouble for hosting an educational milking class or an Easter egg hunt if they don’t include a direct sales pitch for a product at the same time.

• The 25% Income Trap: Farmers are currently banned from making more than 25% of their revenue from “incidental” items (like farm merchandise, souvenirs, or local crafts) and tickets from promotional agritourism events. If a late frost kills the crop, the law effectively forces the farmer to shut down their public experiences to keep that 25% ratio— starving the business of cash exactly when they need it most.

• The Donut Debacle – The law is vague on prepared food sales, leaving some farmers able to provide prepared foods like apple cider donuts or corn on a stick, while others are prohibited from selling prepared foods altogether.

How does HB 4153 solve these issues and help farmers?

This bill moves away from arbitrary restrictions and creates a clear path for farm-based experiences:

• Scraps the Sales Cap: It gets rid of the harmful 25% income limit on retail sales and tickets to events, and instead limits the physical shelf space used for non-farm items and requires a majority of the property to be in farm use.

• Legalizes Fun & Learning: It makes fun and educational activities like corn mazes, playgrounds, and animal exhibits officially legal without forcing the farmer to give a “sales pitch” to every visitor.

• Allows for Rain Cover: It gives farmers the right to use tents or barns to keep guests dry during events so a rainstorm doesn’t result in a permit violation.

• Standardizes Snacks: It sets one rule for the whole state that lets farmers sell simple “grab-and-go” treats like coffee, cider donuts, and snacks from an on-site kitchen.

Does this bill have “guardrails” to ensure farming remains the focus?

Absolutely. HB 4153 is actually more protective than current law to ensure the land stays a working farm:

• Size Limits: For the first time, it sets a 10,000-square-foot cap on farm store buildings. Current law has no size limit.

• Active Production: Over half of the land must be in active agricultural production. You can’t just have a store; you must have a farm. Current law has no production requirement.

• No Hospitality Creep: It strictly bans the farm store operating as a house, hotel, cafe, or fast-food drive-thru.

• Retail Restrictions: Only 25% of the store’s indoor floor space can be used for retail itesm and merchandise (like aprons or mugs).

• Impact Control: Counties have the power to regulate noise, traffic, and store hours to protect neighboring farms – something current law is silent on.

If someone tells you this is a “free-for-all” without guardrails, they either haven’t read the bill or they’re hoping you haven’t. 

Is 10,000 square feet too big for a farm?

Not at all. In a crowded city, 10,000 square feet may seem like a large commercial footprint for a store or a restaurant. But in the farm zone, it’s a drop in the bucket.

To put the scale in perspective:

• In Oregon, the average farm is 430 acres. A 10,000-square-foot store would take up less than 0.06% of that land.

• Even on a small 20-acre farm, this building is only 1.15% of the property.

That can hardly be considered commercial sprawl.

Where did this size limit come from?

The 10,000-square-foot cap wasn’t picked out of a hat; it’s the exact same scale the Legislature already approved for small-scale processing facilities on farmland.

The state has already done the math and decided that a building this size fits perfectly in the farm zone without interfering with neighbors or creating an adverse impact on the land. By using this specific limit, HB 4153 simply takes a standard that the Legislature already trusts and applies it to farm stores so farmers can connect with their customers.

Some are saying this bill allows farm stores to sidestep the “good neighbor” impacts test. What does that mean?

They are probably referring to the “Farm Impacts Test” found in ORS 215.296. The farm impacts test is a massive legal hurdle designed to stop commercial and industrial projects— like landfills, golf courses, or commercial utility facilities— from harming a nearby farm. It requires the landowner to prove, through expensive studies, that their project won’t increase costs or disrupt farming nearby.

Because this test is so technical and subjective, it is often used as a legal weapon. Opponents to new commercial uses often use it to trigger lawsuits and block projects through endless, expensive litigation. Even in the best circumstances, the farm impacts test forces a farmer to hire land-use attorneys and consultants to pass this test during the application process. 

Here is what is required under DLCD’s rules:

Why do they keep saying that farm stores should have to pass the Farm Impacts Test?

Folks raising that concern are likely confusing “farm stores” with “agritourism and other commercial event venues”. There is an important distinction between the two:

• Farm Stores (Allowed by ORS 215.283(1)(o)): A farm store is a place that the farmer is allowed to sell their products to the public, sell local goods, and host promotional events. The Legislature has already decided that these stores— along with wineries, cideries, and breweries — can host events to attract the public to the store and are a natural part of agriculture. As such, they do not have to pass the “Farm Impacts Test.”

• Agritourism & Other Commercial Event Venues (ORS 215.283(4)): This permit is for landowners who want to act as a “venue for hire” (like being a wedding venue or hosting large commercial events like a charity 5K) for a limited number of days each year. You don’t even need a farm store or a retail shop to get one. Because these venues aren’t actually focused on selling crops and are more distant from traditional agriculture, counties put them through a grueling process: a public hearing, expensive permit conditions, and the industrial-strength “Farm Impacts Test.” Most counties don’t even offer these permits because they are so difficult to approve.

Is HB 4153 intended to be a loophole to allow commercial event venues on farmland?

HB 4153 is not a loophole for turning farms into event centers. The bill uses a very narrow definition for “agritourism” that is much stricter than the rules for private or commercial events. To qualify under this bill, an activity must meet three strict requirements:

1. It has to be run by the farm itself, not a third-party company.

2. It must be directly tied to the farm and what they grow.

3. Its main goal must be to get people to visit the farm store and buy farm products.

The bill lists specific examples of what this looks like, such as farm tours, pickling or milking classes, corn mazes, hayrides, and seasonal pumpkin patches or Christmas tree events. It also covers things like play structures for kids and farm-to-table meals.

If a landowner wants to host an event that doesn’t fit this “direct-from-the-farm” model— like a large wedding venue — this bill won’t help them. They would still have to apply for a commercial event permit and pass the expensive “Farm Impacts Test,” assuming their county even allows those types of permits.

Why does the “Farm Impacts Test” hurt family-run farms?

Agritourism events are the “front door” for small family farms and new farm stores. 

For a farm that’s just starting out, hosting things like workshops, festivals, or tours is the best way to get people out to the property. These activities create the foot traffic needed to build a loyal following and drive direct sales that just wouldn’t happen if the farm stayed hidden behind a fence.

Forcing every single agritourism activity to survive the “Farm Impacts Test” isn’t just bureaucratic, it’s a regressive toll on small family businesses. It is fundamentally inequitable to demand that a farmer spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on lawyers, land-use consultants, and filing fees just to have a hay bale slide at a pumpkin patch, host a pickling class, or let kids take a photo with Santa when they pick out a Christmas tree.

When you treat a seasonal farm store activity with the same legal suspicion as a 1,000-person mud run, you aren’t “protecting the land” – you’re simply ensuring that only the wealthiest people can afford the legal “entry fee” to promote their business.

The opinions expressed in this post are those of the author and do not represent the opinions or positions of any party represented by the OPOA Legal Center on any particular matter.