Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agritourism Act250 Act181 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Barnard farmers ask Legislature to clarify Act 181/Act 250 rules after NRB notice on multiuse barn
Summary
Barnard farmers and cooperative members told the Agriculture Committee that a multiuse pole barn primarily used for farm storage was cited by the Natural Resources Board as requiring an Act 250 permit; they asked legislators to amend Act 181/Act 250 to exempt agricultural multiuse structures from permitting requirements.
Christopher Piana, a farmer from Barnard who represents a cooperative of partner farms that operate a market and seasonal music events, said the Natural Resources Board (NRB) issued a letter stating a pole barn his cooperative built is in violation of Act 250 because it was "principally constructed as a stage." He asked the committee to "clarify Act 181 by crafting an amendment that exempts multi structures primarily used for farming and or AOPBs from requiring an Act 250 permit." (Transcript language retained where the speaker used the committee's shorthand.)
Piana said the structure is used most of the year to store hay, bottles and farm equipment and is used as covered space for music roughly "15 to 20 times in the summer." He said the town zoning administrator and the Barnard Select Board recognize the structure as agricultural and that the cooperative holds a lease on conserved farmland and a 275‑year‑old conserved barn.
Piana described why occasional events are part of the farm's direct‑to‑consumer business model: after losing about $10,000 to unpaid invoices from national distributors, his cooperative pivoted toward direct sales, markets and events to keep operations viable. He said the cooperative has historically priced music events on a sliding scale and that the activities are integrated with farm economics rather than being stand‑alone entertainment.
Representative Richard Nelson responded by identifying the activities as agritourism and said he did not see why similar agricultural operations could not be exempt from Act 250 permitting. Committee members and witnesses discussed jurisdictional opinions, the current‑use program and a subsequent jurisdictional audit the farm said it is undergoing.
Why it matters: Farmers and small agricultural cooperatives increasingly use on‑farm, mixed‑use buildings to store equipment and host seasonal markets or community events; how state land‑use law treats those structures affects whether farms must go through Act 250 permitting and related audits.
What the testimony asked for: Piana asked the committee to craft statutory language clarifying that multiuse structures used primarily for agriculture are not subject to Act 250 permitting, or to otherwise provide a clear path for agritourism‑related uses that remain accessory to agricultural operations.
No formal action or vote on statutory change was taken during the testimony. Committee members offered to continue conversations offline and indicated staff would follow up.
