Senate committee weighs clarifying language after enforcement notice over multiuse farm structure

Members of the Vermont Senate Committee on Agriculture on Thursday heard testimony urging clarification of H.484, the miscellaneous agricultural bill, after a Barnard farm received an Act 250 enforcement notice for a pole barn used primarily for farming but occasionally opened for public events.

The dispute centers on whether multiuse farm structures that are “primarily used as a farm structure” should require Act 250 permitting when they are also used intermittently for public events. Caroline Sherman Gordon, legislative director of Rural Vermont, told the committee that the bill’s current draft sections 4 and 5 “overshoot the mark” and recommended removing them and replacing them with language that exempts improvements used as part of an accessory on-farm business from Act 250 permitting so long as the structure is primarily used for farming.

Why it matters: The change would affect whether farms that host occasional public events — festivals, educational or social gatherings, or farm-to-table dinners — must undergo district Act 250 permitting, a process Rural Vermont and local farmers say could impose significant administrative and financial burdens.

Caroline Sherman Gordon, legislative director of Rural Vermont, recommended inserting language into H.484 stating that “no permit or permit amendment is required for the construction of improvements used as part of an accessory on-farm business, including for hosting events, as long as the new or existing structure is primarily used as a farm structure.” She said the recommendation is grounded in existing statutory definitions across 10 V.S.A. and 24 V.S.A. and in prior legislation including Act 143 (2017) and Act 181 (2024).

Joseph Morrell, representing the Feast and Field Collective, told the committee the collective received a November 5 enforcement letter from the district code enforcement officer that their pole barn had commenced development without a permit and that the collective was being required to seek Act 250 permitting. Morrell said the town of Barnard’s zoning administrator and selectboard support treating the structure as agricultural. “We respectfully request that sections 4 and 5 be dropped in their entirety from the miscellaneous ag bill,” Morrell said, adding the collective wants to work with Rural Vermont, the committee and the Land Use Review Board (LURB) on longer-term clarifications.

Senator Joe Major, the committee’s vice chair, and other committee members described the proposal as intended to be a technical clarification rather than new policy. Major asked, “What harm is it going to do to the environment by two months out of the year being able to do what they’re doing?” suggesting the committee’s interest in a narrow fix to preserve farms’ ability to host occasional events without triggering Act 250 reviews.

Ellen Czajkowski of the Office of Legislative Council attended to review the draft language; committee members agreed to have legislative counsel review the written proposal and to meet again the following day to continue the discussion. The committee did not take a formal vote on H.484 or on removing sections 4 and 5 during the April 24 session.

Committee and stakeholder views diverged on scope. Rural Vermont argued the current statutory framework — including the exemption for farming in the definition of “development” in 10 V.S.A. — supports treating improvements that are primarily agricultural in purpose as exempt from Act 250 permitting even if occasionally used for events. Opposing perspectives noted fairness issues raised by non-farming venue operators who have previously undergone permitting, but no formal representative of that industry gave testimony at this meeting.

The committee scheduled follow-up review with legislative counsel and asked Rural Vermont to provide its proposed replacement language (Caroline Sherman Gordon said the text had been sent and posted on the committee web page). No formal legislative action or vote was recorded on April 24.

The matter remains open. Committee members and stakeholders said they intend to continue conversations over the summer with the Land Use Review Board, the Agency of Natural Resources, municipal officials and affected farmers to consider broader rules on farm events and farm stays beyond the narrow multiuse-structure clarification currently under discussion.