HB 4153 authorizes counties to treat a “farm store” as a permitted nonfarm use on land zoned for exclusive farm use, and also on mixed farm and forest land, if the store meets detailed size, acreage, and production requirements. The bill defines farm stores as on-farm retail facilities that primarily sell products produced by the farm operation, while also allowing limited sales of other retail items, prepared food and beverages, and agri-tourism activities such as tours, classes, mazes, seasonal events, and farm-to-table meals. It sets limits on enclosed building space, the share of floor area devoted to non-farm retail, and the minimum acreage or farm-income thresholds needed to qualify.
The measure also amends Oregon’s farm-use land use statutes to add farm stores to the list of allowed uses in exclusive farm use zones and to integrate them into the state’s existing framework for farm stands, agri-tourism, and related commercial activities. Counties may adopt siting standards for access, parking, traffic, noise, event hours, sanitation, and solid waste, but those standards cannot be applied in a way that effectively prohibits a qualifying farm store. The bill further clarifies that farm stores may use temporary structures and mobile vending units for agri-tourism, and may include licensed on-site kitchen facilities, while prohibiting use as a cafe or drive-through establishment.
HB 4153 also makes conforming changes to Oregon’s psilocybin and marijuana land-use statutes. It expressly bars farm stores from being used in conjunction with psilocybin-producing fungi crops or marijuana crops on exclusive farm use land, alongside existing prohibitions on new dwellings, farm stands, and certain commercial activities tied to those crops. The bill leaves in place county authority to regulate or allow certain related activities under the broader farm/forest land-use framework, but it draws a clear line against using the new farm store authorization as a vehicle for cannabis- or psilocybin-related retail or commercial operations.
The general sentiment around the bill appears favorable, with strong majority support in both chambers. It advanced out of House committee on an 8-3 vote, then passed the House 37-14 and the Senate 21-8, suggesting broad bipartisan acceptance even if not unanimous. The bill’s final enactment and effective date of January 1, 2027 indicate it was ultimately approved as part of Oregon’s 2026 laws.
The main points of contention likely centered on land-use compatibility and the scope of commercial activity allowed in farm zones. Supporters appear to have favored expanding direct-to-consumer agricultural sales and agritourism opportunities for farms, while opponents likely worried about incremental commercialization, traffic, noise, and the potential for farm stores to function more like retail or event venues than agricultural uses. The explicit exclusions for psilocybin and marijuana-related operations also suggest lawmakers were attentive to preventing the new authorization from being used to support controversial crop-related businesses.
The bill amends ORS 215.213 and 215.283 to add “farm store” as an allowed use in exclusive farm use zones, subject to acreage, farm-income, building-size, and product-origin requirements, and it authorizes counties to regulate farm-store siting through standards on access, parking, traffic, noise, hours, sanitation, and waste. It also amends ORS 475A.570 and 475C.489 to prohibit farm stores from being used in connection with psilocybin-producing fungi or marijuana crops on exclusive farm use land. The practical effect is to expand on-farm retail and agritourism opportunities while preserving county oversight and limiting nonfarm commercialization.
The bill appears to have had generally positive support, reflected in passage from committee and comfortable floor majorities in both chambers. The vote margins show some opposition, but not enough to block the measure, suggesting lawmakers broadly accepted the policy goal of helping farms diversify income through direct sales and agritourism. The final enactment indicates the prevailing sentiment was favorable toward the bill’s farm-business expansion approach.
The likely controversy was over how far farm zones should be opened to retail and event-based uses. Critics may have viewed farm stores as a step toward commercial development in agricultural areas, raising concerns about traffic, noise, parking, and the cumulative effect of agritourism on farmland preservation. Another point of sensitivity was the bill’s interaction with psilocybin and marijuana laws; by expressly barring farm stores from being used with those crops, the bill signals concern about preventing cannabis- or psilocybin-related retail activity from piggybacking on the new farm-store authorization.