Vermont committee considers tightening Act 250 language for multiuse farm buildings

A Vermont legislative committee on April 29 heard testimony on whether Act 250’s permitting exemptions should be clarified to protect multiuse farm buildings used for on-farm events and accessory businesses.

The discussion centered on four drafting options presented by Caroline Sherman Gordon, director for Rural Vermont, and other stakeholders aimed at resolving a dispute over whether Act 250 requires permits for improvements to farm structures when the buildings are also used for commercial events or sales.

The issue grew out of an enforcement notice the committee heard about: a district coordinator reported an alleged Act 250 violation in a case where local officials and the farm owners called a recently built barn a primarily farm structure. Joseph Morrell, representing the farm, said the owners received a notice Nov. 5 and replied in January that the building was a multiuse farm structure and “majority farm use.” The enforcement authority has asked the owners to apply for an Act 250 permit, the committee was told.

“Having legislative language that can move this year, and setting that precedent in a legally binding way would be really the solution we prefer,” Sherman Gordon told the committee, urging a bill change rather than temporary enforcement delays.

Sherman Gordon outlined four options. Option 1 would add language negotiated with the Fable Farm Collective’s counsel to the existing subsection of Act 250 that exempts certain on‑farm activities. Option 2 — her preferred text — would more broadly reframe the exemption to focus on whether a structure is “primarily a farm structure,” removing some of the specific references to storage, sale, preparation, or processing of qualifying products. Option 3 (and a similar option 4) would narrow the change to explicitly exempt construction of improvements used to host events so long as the structure remains primarily farm‑use — a narrower, politically easier path, participants said.

Committee members and counsel flagged how Act 250 and municipal zoning apply different standards. LJ Cassey of the Office of Legislative Council told the panel that Act 250 focuses on commercial activity and can treat an activity as commercial “even one day,” whereas municipal zoning assesses whether structures are used primarily for farming and applies tiered thresholds for development. “It really does depend on the facts of the case,” Cassey said of whether Act 250 would be triggered.

Farm representatives described practical uncertainty. Morrell said local zoning officials and the town’s select board regarded the building as farm use; he noted the structure sits in the middle of a 450‑acre organic farm and said a district coordinator’s alleged site visit — if it occurred — could give very different impressions depending on season. “If you show up in the summertime and you see abandoned, it looks like a stage. If you show up in November, it’s full of hay,” he said.

Speakers also flagged a statutory sales‑threshold provision that was added last year: a clause stating an exemption applies when more than 50% of a product’s annual sales come from products produced on the farm. Sherman Gordon and others said that 50% metric is difficult to measure in practice and is part of the reason for seeking clearer statutory language.

Committee members sought factual follow‑up rather than deciding policy in the hearing. The chair asked the farm owners to provide a photograph of the structure and said the committee will invite the agency official who issued the Act 250 determination and the Natural Resources Board representative to explain the enforcement decision. The committee planned to reconvene with those parties later in the week.

No formal motions or votes were taken at the April 29 session; members requested more evidence and agency input before taking legislative action.