Vermont farm coalition urges lawmakers to restore municipal exemption, codify right to grow food after Supreme Court ruling

Caroline Sherman Gordon, legislative director of Wolvenmont, told the Agriculture, Food Resiliency, & Forestry committee that a May Vermont Supreme Court ruling opened the door to town-by-town regulation of farms and urged the legislature to 'clearly and plainly reinstate the municipal exemption as it was understood since 1987 by clarifying only the language in Title 24.'

Gordon described a coalition of agriculture and food-system groups — including the Vermont Farm Bureau, American Farmland Trust, Farm to Plate and others — that propose statutory changes to preserve consistent statewide treatment of farming. She said the coalition's aim is not to loosen standards but to prevent municipalities or homeowner associations from using local rules to restrict food producing activities.

"We need to clearly and plainly reinstate the municipal exemption as it was understood since 1987 by clarifying only the language in Title 24," Gordon said, adding that the group also wants the Legislature to "codify a right to grow food" so towns and private homeowner associations cannot prohibit basic food-cultivating practices.

Gordon cited research she said was produced by partners including American Farmland Trust and New England Feeding New England, saying Vermont is on a trajectory to lose farmland — she quoted a projection of "an additional 61,800 acres of farmland by 2040" — while regional estimates show hundreds of thousands of acres would be needed to increase local food self-sufficiency. She framed the proposal as protecting working lands, local food security and the economic role of agriculture in Vermont.

Gordon also described how existing RAPs qualifying criteria — including Schedule F tax filings and an income threshold — enabled her as a beginning sheep farmer to access Best Management Practice (BMP) grant funding to bring her operation into compliance. She said early investments to launch her farm totaled about $15,000–$20,000 per year and that a BMP reimbursement program capped at roughly $50,000 shaped how she financed infrastructure work.

Amber Perry, administrator and policy director at the Vermont Farm Bureau, told the committee that consistency across municipal boundaries is essential: "Consistency is critical for farmers to remain compliant while continuing to operate efficiently." Perry said revisiting the RAPs now could introduce confusion and hinder progress for producers who rely on those rules.

Representative Mills, who spoke for the committee, said the RAPs "really apply only to animal agriculture" and cautioned against reopening RAP rule language too broadly, while also stressing the need for practical protections so farmers can harvest feed and operate market stands without undue local restriction.

Committee members and witnesses discussed whether specific elements such as the $2,000 income threshold and Schedule F criteria are statutory or part of agency RAP rules; witnesses said those tests are in the RAPs (rules), not the statute. The Agency of Agriculture, Food, and Markets is scheduled to present proposed language to the committee the following morning.

What happened next: the committee paused the hearing to receive the agency's written language and to schedule further review. No formal motion or vote occurred at the session covered in the transcript.

Why it matters: witnesses say the court ruling could create a patchwork of local regulations that disadvantage beginning farmers and accelerate farmland loss. The coalition asks the Legislature to take statutory action to restore the municipal exemption, maintain RAP qualifying criteria that allow new farmers to access support, and enshrine a right to grow food to protect small-scale and community cultivation going forward.