Rural Vermont seeks Act 250 clarifications to protect accessory on‑farm events and multiuse farm structures (H.94)

Caroline Gordon of Rural Vermont and other witnesses urged the House Agriculture Committee to amend H.94 to clarify that multiuse farm structures primarily used for agricultural purposes should not trigger Act 250 permitting, and to reduce regulatory barriers to accessory on‑farm businesses such as farm stays and limited events.

The request aims to resolve confusion that has left some farms subject to land‑development permitting despite structures being used broadly for agricultural processing, storage and occasional events. Supporters said a narrow, targeted sentence inserted into H.94 could make multiuse farm structures clearly exempt from Act 250 while leaving other health, safety and municipal requirements intact.

Caroline Gordon said the committee has discussed accessory on‑farm language for years and that H.94 offers a vehicle to add a clarifying sentence to the statute. She proposed language to the effect that no Act 250 permit or permit amendment should be required for multiuse structures so long as the structure is primarily used as a farm structure as defined in the statute. Gordon noted Act 181 (passed last year) modified accessory‑on‑farm rules at the municipal zoning level but does not necessarily carry that exemption through Act 250 rules; the proposed clarifying sentence would do that.

Supporters gave an example of a historic barn repurposed for wine processing, storage and occasional tastings or events. Gordon said such multiuse structures—if primarily agricultural—should not be forced into the Act 250 process. She also acknowledged that broader, more comprehensive statutory work over the summer may be needed to harmonize farm designation, multiuse structures and enforcement, and suggested leveraging the Agency of Agriculture’s existing farm‑designation process in a fuller fix.

A legislative staff member cautioned that H.94 would not be a blanket authorization for events. The staff member noted statutory and public‑health requirements still apply: events inside a structure may be limited in duration (the staff member cited a statute limiting an indoor event to no more than four consecutive days and no more than 12 days per year under the accessory‑on‑farm provisions), potable water and wastewater standards and rules for serving food to the public may still apply. The staff member summarized H.94’s core text as exempting certain construction and improvements for hosting events or farm stays from Act 250 review when the farm is located in a municipality that has adopted performance standards and site‑plan review.

Committee members asked how exemptions would operate in municipalities without zoning or performance standards; staff explained that in such towns Act 250 thresholds could still be triggered and the exemption would not apply. Several members said a signed state determination—such as a farm designation letter from the Agency of Agriculture—that explicitly recognized a property’s farm structures could reduce ambiguity for enforcement across multiple statutes.

No vote was taken on H.94 during the session; presenters offered to provide draft language and work with legislative counsel and stakeholders on a more comprehensive approach.