Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory On Farm Businesses topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Vermont farmers say Act 181 changes and NRB complaint threaten on‑farm multipurpose operations
Summary
A cooperative of farms told the committee a November NRB letter contends a newly built pole barn is primarily for events and therefore not exempt, prompting legal fees and calls for clearer multi‑use on‑farm structure language in the miscellaneous bill and administrative reports required by Act 181.
Joseph Morrell, who operates Eastman Farm in Barnard and participates in a cooperative managing roughly 450 acres, told the House agriculture committee that a Natural Resources Board (NRB) letter accused the farm's pole barn of being constructed “primarily for an event,” which he said exposes them to enforcement despite long‑standing on‑farm uses.
Morrell said the pole barn stores hay and tractors, is used year‑round, and supports value‑added activities including on‑farm processing and a market kitchen. He said his cooperative received a November letter from the NRB alleging the barn's primary use was events; the case has generated thousands of dollars in legal fees and substantial time spent responding.
Morrell asked the committee for clarification of accessory on‑farm business language that passed last year. He said the law was intended to protect storage, processing and direct sales on farms but has been applied in a way that “overregulate[s] events and farm stays,” harming diversified farms who rely on on‑farm businesses for viability. He described the change as creating potential enforcement against otherwise typical farm activities such as hosting music, markets and food service.
Committee members discussed possible fixes. Several members noted there is language under consideration in the miscellaneous act to recognize multi‑use farm structures, and staff said Act 181 includes a requirement that the Board (NRB/LURB) report back to the legislature by next February on accessory on‑farm businesses and events. Morrell said he supports adding explicit multi‑use language in the miscellaneous act and planned to follow up with Senate Agriculture.
Representatives asked clarifying procedural questions about Act 250/Act 181, current use, zoning determinations and which committee has authority over specific changes. The committee did not take a vote; members said they plan to continue the conversation with agency staff and possibly modify draft language to distinguish venues from bona fide on‑farm value‑added operations.
