The first significant change was an amendment to RSA 674:32-b, II, which added the following language:
No municipality shall adopt an ordinance, bylaw, definition, or policy regarding agritourism activities that conflicts with the definition of agritourism in RSA 21:34-a.
The State’s definition of agritourism in RSA 21:34-a was not changed. “Agritourism” continues to be defined in RSA 21:34-a as:
…attracting visitors to a farm to attend events and activities that are accessory uses to the primary farm operation, including, but not limited to, eating a meal, making overnight stays, enjoyment of the farm environment, education about farm operations, or active involvement in the activity of the farm. [Emphasis added.]
Thus the State’s definition of agritourism, which local regulations cannot conflict with, retains the requirement that agritourism uses be “accessory uses to the primary farm operation.” Agritourism uses must be minor in relation to existing farm operations, and any attempt to eliminate the accessory use requirement at the local level would violate State law. Senate Bill 412 does not change the result in Forster v. Town of Henniker, 167 N.H. 745 (2015), in which the New Hampshire Supreme Court upheld the Henniker ZBA’s and the Superior Court’s findings that the plaintiff’s proposed weddings and other commercial events were not accessory to plaintiff’s existing tree farm operation.
The second significant change effected by Senate Bill 412 is that the New Hampshire Commissioner of Agriculture has been given the authority to determine whether or not a municipality’s ordinance, bylaw, definition, or policy on agritourism conflicts with RSA 21:34-a. An applicant may petition the Commissioner for a declaratory ruling as to whether the municipality’s regulations conflict with RSA 21:34-a.
