Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agriculture Noise Exemption topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears support for widening agricultural noise exemptions; bill framed as technical fix
Summary
Supporters told the Municipal and County Government Committee that House Bill 272 would clarify state law so forestry and other agricultural operations are not blocked by municipal noise or “quiet hours” ordinances. Testimony from timber and farm groups framed the change as technical; some lawmakers asked about scope and impact on traffic.
The Municipal and County Government Committee heard testimony on House Bill 272 on Jan. 30, 2025, a proposal to alter statutory language that would ease limits on farm and forestry operations that run during off hours.
Proponents said the bill removes the words “quiet hours” from current statute so municipal noise ordinances cannot be used to stop time-sensitive agricultural and forestry work. "We are just proposing to strike the words quiet hours in the current language," said Representative Aaron, a co-sponsor who introduced the bill when the prime sponsor was absent. "We want to support our farmers and the work that they do and the times that they need to do the work that they do."
Jason Stock, executive director of the New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association, told the committee that forestry is classified as agriculture under state law and that delay from a noise ordinance can force loggers to miss narrow weather windows. "Things like noise ordinances can really create a problem when you're particularly in a month or two when mud season's approaching us," Stock said. He described instances when frozen ground or cold temperatures make early-morning operations necessary.
Rob Johnson, policy director for the New Hampshire Farm Bureau, added that agricultural timing also matters for crop applications and harvests; he said the bill clarifies intent from earlier legislation (House Bill 252, 2023) and is intended to prevent municipalities from unintentionally blocking routine, time-sensitive farm tasks.
Committee members asked about scope. Representative Fracht asked whether existing quiet-hour ordinances would be grandfathered; Representative Aaron replied he believed they would not be grandfathered. Representative Colby asked how to distinguish forestry or farm operations from land clearing for development; witnesses pointed to planning-board triggers such as subdivision or site-plan review as the dividing line.
The committee also received written and online testimony: Representative Gilman reported a blue-sheet tally of one in support and one opposed, and online registration showing six in support and one opposed.
The hearing closed with staff collecting final materials; no formal committee action was taken on Jan. 30.
Ending: Proponents framed HB 272 as a narrow, technical clarification to protect seasonal and weather-dependent agricultural and forestry activity. Lawmakers pressed witnesses for limits and distinctions between agricultural operations and other uses of land; committee deliberations were set to continue as the bill moves through the process.
