Legislative committee considers narrowing Act 250 oversight for accessory on‑farm events

A legislative committee reviewed proposed language to limit when Vermont's Act 250 applies to accessory on‑farm businesses, including farm events and farm stays, legislative counsel Ellen Kozowski told members.

Kozowski told the committee she had prepared “a couple of options to rewrite the language slightly” and walked members through how the 2018 municipal zoning provision for accessory on‑farm businesses and the Act 250 statutory scheme interact.

The issue stems from a 2018 amendment to the municipal zoning statute (24 V.S.A. §4412) that created the accessory on‑farm business category so towns could not prohibit certain farm businesses in zoning; towns may still apply a limited site‑plan review focused on lighting, parking and signage. Act 250, the state land‑use permitting law, separately exempts farming but treats commercial activities differently; a partial Act 250 exemption added last year exempts certain processing and sales so long as at least 50% of products come from the farm.

Kozowski said the current question is whether Act 250’s jurisdiction should be narrowed further so that events or farm‑stays do not trigger an Act 250 permit when the structure hosting them is “primarily used for farming.” She described that narrower approach as the committee’s best chance to allow some events without expanding exemptions broadly.

“This is not a simple statutory scheme,” Kozowski said, noting that Act 250 decisions are site‑specific and fact‑dependent. She described three drafting options to the committee and recommended the narrowest approach: allow an exemption for events held in structures that are primarily used for farming, relying on existing Act 250 definitions rather than importing municipal zoning terms.

Committee members raised several concerns. Some said they want guardrails to prevent nonfarm commercial operators from claiming the exemption. Members also asked about environmental and infrastructure impacts — wastewater disposal, traffic, and other consequences of larger events — that Act 250 review is intended to address. Counsel acknowledged those concerns and said language could be tightened further (for example, by limiting the number of events or clarifying what counts as temporary facilities) if the committee wishes.

Members discussed next steps rather than taking formal action. They proposed convening the district coordinator who issues Act 250 jurisdictional opinions, staff from the Environmental Division/Department of Environmental Conservation, and other stakeholders to review the factual record for the site that prompted the inquiry and to negotiate workable statutory language. Kozowski also noted that a review board established by last year’s Act 181 has been asked to evaluate whether the jurisdiction for commercial activities on farms should be revised; that report is due in February next year (section 34 of Act 181).

No motion or vote was recorded. Committee members asked counsel to draft a narrowed bill option if a stakeholder meeting indicates legislation is appropriate. The committee also discussed the possibility of requesting reconsideration of any jurisdictional opinion if the affected property owner can provide additional facts.

The committee scheduled follow‑up work and outreach to regulators and district coordinators before deciding whether to move forward with legislation.