[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6253598,"mediaKeyId","3180061-f003a178e2750fe08018d6e14814a3ec","parentId",3180061,"title","Committee weighs narrowing Bill 484 exemption for Rutland County Agricultural Society and discusses farm funding","audioSeconds",680,"startMs",2211000,"endMs",2891000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3180061-f003a178e2750fe08018d6e14814a3ec&start=2211&end=2891","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3180061-f003a178e2750fe08018d6e14814a3ec/thumbnail_2211000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6253598/Vermont/Committee-weighs-narrowing-Bill-484-exemption-for-Rutland-County-Agricultural-Society-and-discusses-farm-funding","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6253598-180923140a54e417a50852b453c13da9/orig.mp4?Expires=1770908716&Signature=CmQVEOzciwkHxSQKyF7ZtoSKDvAAOL-oIKfwGJ7UIQPzAjj1YPvXtxAmcRqRJKGXm68shJdOwLhPSfqsnPGlC2oZACIhclIXZ7IN~e~2qjEQ45Gj3hSK~yDo2gCVHwYf~81Vsjxb77wdQdjUZ0x8p18t2Fab7kI9g7QCfSbjxPcywHBeR40qd~1EmHUxCzl4-teTJBENpkSolYuMMKFTO6ybnPItl1zL6lGfi8SJLxC~8WuxPccGgAccxydVbhjXp7XVbDgL~UFw12yT49yFcS8pZ~XYQBnZvp1tI6c23GchX2rP4cxnj98bLgRVK4rLxhBFT3lt39kcT~m8vBm-HA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-05-02T15:14:01.95Z","article","A committee meeting on May 2 included discussion of Bill 484 and a request from a committee member that counsel redraft an amendment to narrow a proposed exemption to the Rutland County Agricultural Society’s income.

The member said they asked legal counsel Michael O'Grady to draft language that would remove an impact fee and the requirement to complete an offset project for that narrow exemption; the member added that Secretary Moore indicated preliminary support for that change. The committee asked counsel to place a redrafted amendment on the agenda for the next week for further consideration.

Why it matters: Bill 484 and related amendments would change which entities are eligible for an exemption from an assessment or fee, with direct implications for county fairs and agricultural societies. Committee members also connected the discussion to broader agricultural appropriations and to the practical effects of Act 250 enforcement in one local case being discussed elsewhere in the meeting.

Committee members discussed whether to move quickly on a narrow fix or to postpone and craft a more comprehensive bill later. One proposal was to table action for now and revisit a more comprehensive legislative approach in the next session, echoing concerns that the committee lacked enough factual detail about ongoing enforcement matters to draft precise language.

The meeting also covered budget items and related legislative language. Committee members said the farm‑to‑school program would have $1 million in the current proposal and that a security fund was set at $1 million; they noted an attempt to restore previous USDA‑related funding. Members also raised concerns that adding forestry to a security fund could shift control of the bill in later negotiations and said they might pursue a committee of conference if agreement cannot be reached.

Committee staff and members noted there may be floor amendments between second and third reading on related provisions, including a suggested amendment to restrict grant eligibility when applicants receive funds from other specified sources. Members asked to be prepared to add an amendment during that window if warranted.

No formal vote was taken on Bill 484 during the session; committee direction to counsel to redraft the amendment and to place the item on the next agenda was the principal outcome.

Next steps: counsel Michael O'Grady will be asked to redraft the amendment narrowing the exemption; the committee will reconsider the redraft at the next available meeting and track related appropriation language as the bill moves through the floor and possible conference committee negotiations.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Agriculture - 2025-05-02 - 9:00 AM","oneSentenceSummary","Committee members asked staff to redraft an amendment to Bill 484 to limit a proposed exemption to Rutland County Agricultural Society income, discussed impact fees and offset projects, and reviewed related appropriations including a $1 million farm‑to‑school allocation and a $1 million security fund.","taxTitle","Agriculture, SENATE, Committees, Legislative , Vermont","taxId",35161,"location","Vermont","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6253601,"Land Use Review Board explains Act 250 permitting, enforcement and treatment of accessory farm businesses",2135,60000,2195000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3180061-f003a178e2750fe08018d6e14814a3ec&start=60&end=2195","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3180061-f003a178e2750fe08018d6e14814a3ec/thumbnail_60000.jpg","/articles/6253601/Vermont/Land-Use-Review-Board-explains-Act-250-permitting-enforcement-and-treatment-of-accessory-farm-businesses","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6253601-d9e89df0d2acc07779cdc061a93f77a2/orig.mp4?Expires=1770908716&Signature=XJA8SXAlsSBhrypV5yAEBxunGkOj2OgA5vkDBsNwFeUKQLD6r0HHPXEEoewfcfFhhUwFMX0S4gvMn-ZeGub8CzTGhWDLYJT5JyfPzodZ-5DtXzSFqSn72Au4Yxm3-sAb32EKBonHec2h8HqegSXzgE5fBh0HJfZIlCE3qD6wUXv9DysAMqiBkzvGZXIVLkRm0nrDkN9Uiz9l6zhtuma6-74QY8FO2Zhh1p7VH7BZjK3UlxXKnQkbSBgx3OCxhE~WIEuvH5rGJ0dQYZRJZg80zTXm1HjNRbZ04kAeQ1GFuG2QdJajUQP80wewiBmVGGiltuiV7oChS88ytjn0y9g27A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Peter Gill, executive director of the Land Use Review Board, told a legislative committee on May 2 that Act 250 is “a statewide permitting system” and that the board’s enforcement work is complaint driven.

The briefing outlined how the board and district commissions review permits, how Act 181 changed governance and jurisdictional mapping, and how accessory on‑farm businesses now fit into the permitting framework while certain farm uses remain exempt. Gill emphasized that enforcement commonly begins with a desktop review or site visit and that most matters are resolved before a contested hearing.

Why it matters: Act 250 governs large land‑use changes statewide and can affect farmers, wood products manufacturers, accessory farm businesses and municipalities. Changes under Act 181 added administrative steps and mapping tiers that could alter which projects need state permits, and enforcement pathways can carry penalties or require corrective actions.

Gill summarized the permitting picture with these figures: the board and district commissions typically issue roughly 350–400 permits per year; about 5% of permits proceed to contested hearings; denials are rare (roughly 0.2% of permits); and 1–3% of decisions are appealed. He said permitting time varies by process: administrative amendments can be handled in days, minor permits follow a 30‑day notice period and major hearings can take in the neighborhood of a year depending on complexity and the need to make affirmative findings on multiple criteria.

Under recent law changes brought by Act 181, Gill said the board’s governance shifted from a single full‑time chair to five full‑time board members and additional staff. The statute now requires district commissions to evaluate an expanded set of review criteria — described during the briefing as 33 sub‑criteria — and to make affirmative findings where applicable. Gill said the board is beginning a mapping and designation process for tier 1a (full exemption), tier 1b (partial exemption focused on housing), tier 2 (status quo) and tier 3 (conservation/sensitive) areas, and that regional planning commissions will propose maps that the board will review later in the year.

On accessory on‑farm businesses, Gill said Act 181 aligned some accessory farm business provisions with municipal permitting but noted limits: “we did not have accessory on farm business as a specific exemption or call out in Act 250 prior to Act 181. Now we do,” he said, while also noting that language on events and farm stays was not fully harmonized between the legislative chambers.

Gill described enforcement as a complaint‑driven process: “We get a complaint about a particular property, we will investigate that complaint.” Investigations can include desktop review, site visits and curated evidence such as photos or videos. If staff conclude there is noncompliance, the board’s enforcement options include a notice of alleged violation (NOAV), an assurance of discontinuance (AOD) that can become a court order if signed, administrative orders, civil citations and, in rare cases, emergency orders when substantial harm is alleged. Gill noted most matters resolve through negotiated settlement rather than contested proceedings.

Committee members pressed for clarity on site visits, jurisdictional opinions and whether specific cases could be discussed; Gill repeatedly said he could not discuss open investigations but encouraged landowners to engage with enforcement officers to resolve potential violations. He also summarized staff capacity on the board: “We have 1 attorney on the Land Use Review Board. 1 attorney, 3 planners, and, 1 engineer.”

The briefing touched briefly on compliance costs and deterrence. Committee members said Act 250 can be onerous and that many landowners avoid projects that would trigger permitting. Gill and the committee discussed a pending Wood Products Manufacturers Study, with Gill estimating the board would complete that study in mid‑June and circulate findings to the committee.

The board is continuing rulemaking and the mapping process for the tier designations later this year. Gill urged affected landowners to engage early with district coordinators and enforcement officers if questions about jurisdiction or compliance arise.

Next steps: the board will review regional maps submitted by regional planning commissions and complete the wood products study in mid‑June; the committee said it will continue to consider statutory changes and asked staff and counsel for additional legal and procedural details before drafting legislation.

","Peter Gill, executive director of the Land Use Review Board, briefed a legislative committee on May 2 on how Act 250 permitting, enforcement and recent changes under Act 181 affect accessory on‑farm businesses, timelines, penalties and the board’s mapping process.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee weighs narrowing Bill 484 exemption for Rutland County Agricultural Society and discusses farm funding

Land Use Review Board explains Act 250 permitting, enforcement and treatment of accessory farm businesses