Vermont growers urge reversal of municipal setbacks, seek agricultural protections for outdoor cannabis

At a February 11, 2025 Agriculture Committee meeting, representatives of the Vermont Growers Association, Rural Vermont and the Vermont Cannabis Equity Coalition warned that municipal setbacks and proposed cultivation districts could force small outdoor cannabis cultivators out of business.

Committee members heard that the state’s early statutory approach to cannabis cultivation — which in part treated small outdoor growers as agricultural producers — is being eroded by recent bills and local proposals. The speakers said that change has created regulatory uncertainty and, they argued, will worsen consolidation and market volatility that already threaten small operators.

Jeffrey Patella, co‑founder and executive director of the Vermont Growers Association, said the market is showing signs of strain: “Licensees are feeling these hardships now.” Patella told the committee that cannabis businesses face unique financial burdens — from banking and insurance to security and compliance — that make the small‑producer sector fragile. He also noted the association’s nonprofit emergency grant program, which awarded 11 grantees just over $30,000 last year to help licensees who lack access to federal relief.

Graham, speaking for Rural Vermont, traced the statutory history the group sees as protective of small cultivators. He and others cited Act 158 (which enabled recognition of small outdoor tiers), Act 270 (2023), and more recent bills that began as H.549 before shifting into H.612. Those measures, the presenters said, enable municipalities to create “preferred cultivation districts” and to set minimum and maximum setbacks that exceed typical commercial setbacks, and that they were written in response to a high‑profile local dispute in Essex Junction.

Speakers said state survey data compiled by the Cannabis Control Board (CCB) shows most municipalities are not experiencing problems with outdoor cultivation: roughly 90% of municipalities reported no issues while about 2% reported significant issues, according to testimony. Rural Vermont said the CCB’s mapping shows at least 11 current licensed businesses would be functionally shut down by the proposed setbacks, and that the mapping may not yet reflect every affected farm.

Presenters emphasized particular regulatory problems: inconsistent treatment of greenhouses and “high tunnels,” uncertainty about eligibility for current‑use or “use value appraisal” programs, and the practical difficulty of accessing land that is encumbered by federal conservation or NRCS funding. Graham told the committee that setbacks discussed in the working group ranged as high as 25 to 50 feet in preferred or non‑preferred districts, while a municipal witness from Williston had said typical commercial side and rear setbacks are often 10 to 15 feet.

Speakers urged the committee to preserve agricultural treatment for outdoor cannabis so growers retain access to tools commonly available to farmers — such as current‑use appraisal and protections under right‑to‑farm laws — and recommended mediation before litigation in neighbor disputes. They also pressed for direct‑to‑consumer sales options so small producers can diversify revenue and remain viable rather than being limited to wholesale markets.

The committee did not take formal action during the session. Presenters invited committee members to visit farms and to reconvene working groups; the committee scheduled follow‑up discussion.