Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agritourism Act250 Exemption topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill change to exempt accessory on‑farm events from Act 250; members raise noise, traffic and zoning concerns
Summary
An amendment to S325 would remove Act 250 jurisdiction for certain on‑farm educational, recreational and social events; sponsors say it would spur farm income, while members warned concerts and weddings could create parking, noise and safety problems and urged reliance on municipal zoning and the LURB.
The Ways & Means Committee reviewed an amendment to S325 on May 6 that would exempt certain accessory on‑farm business activities from Act 250 permitting, potentially allowing farms to host educational, recreational or social events without triggering state land‑use review.
The amendment sponsor described the change as a way to permit farms to host activities that "feature agricultural practices or qualifying products" without an Act 250 permit, while leaving municipal zoning and ordinances in place. "This would allow more without a Act 250 permit," the sponsor said, arguing the change would expand economic opportunities for farms and provide new revenue streams.
Committee members and other speakers raised concrete concerns: they asked whether using a farm for concerts or weddings would remain subject to town controls and whether removing Act 250 oversight could create traffic, parking, noise and public‑safety problems. One member noted the land use review board (LURB) is expected to report on accessory on‑farm businesses and referenced a Nov. 15 date in the draft bill for that report. Another member warned about conservation trade‑offs, saying "those unfragmented forests have to be protected as much," linking agricultural experience development to environmental protection.
Clarifying details discussed in the hearing included the existing 50% test for on‑farm business income (current law treats farms differently if more than half the income comes from non‑farm products) and the threshold tests for qualifying as a "farm" for the exemption (speakers said one test is $2,000 in farm income or four acres or being on Schedule F). Members stressed that even if Act 250 jurisdiction were narrowed, towns could still regulate events through local ordinances, and insurance considerations would affect a farm's ability to host large gatherings.
No formal Ways & Means vote occurred; members said they would await the Natural Resources Committee's review and the pending LURB work before taking final action.
