Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agriculture Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Agency of Agriculture seeks statutory fix to protect gardens, backyard poultry and clarify farming exemptions
Summary
Agency of Agriculture staff told a legislative committee they will propose statutory and RAPs rule changes to explicitly protect growing food and small backyard flocks from municipal zoning, raise the sales threshold from $2,000 to $5,000, and create a discretionary 1–4 acre review for livestock with municipal consultation.
BURLINGTON — Steve Collier of the Vermont Agency of Agriculture told a legislative committee that the agency will send draft statutory and rule language intended to restore and clarify the state’s exemption for farming from municipal zoning after a recent court decision. “To us, this is a must‑have bill this session,” Collier said, summarizing the agency’s goal of protecting farmers and residents who grow food while keeping farming reasonably regulated.
The draft would explicitly prohibit towns from using zoning bylaws to restrict the cultivation of plants for food and would protect a ‘‘small backyard poultry flock’’ (excluding roosters) from municipal zoning enforcement. Collier said the change would not make every garden subject to agency regulation; rather, it would remove zoning as a barrier to growing food.
On monetary thresholds, the agency proposes raising the current $2,000 gross‑sales trigger that brings small producers under Required Agricultural Practices (RAPs) to $5,000. Collier said the Vermont League of Cities and Towns initially proposed $10,000 and agreed $5,000 was a reasonable compromise to limit towns’ ability to regulate very small sellers while preserving access for small farm businesses and new farmers who can qualify on a business‑plan basis.
The draft would also narrow the automatic effect of filing a federal tax Schedule F. Under the proposal, filing Schedule F alone would not automatically qualify a person for RAPs protections; instead a person would need to meet one of the other thresholds (4 contiguous acres, qualifying livestock on a 1–4 acre discretionary review, or $5,000 in gross sales).
Livestock raises separate concerns, Collier said, because animals generate waste, nutrients and require shelter. RAPs currently use a 4‑contiguous‑acre standard to determine coverage; the agency would keep 4 acres as a clear baseline but add a discretionary review for parcels between 1 and 4 acres. In those cases the agency would evaluate whether the land base is sufficient to manage nutrients and waste and would consult the appropriate municipal authority before deciding whether RAPs apply.
Collier said farm structures remain regulated by the agency: farmers must give notice to towns before building, follow setbacks or apply for agency variances, and multi‑use buildings are judged by primary use. He added that shelter and animal‑welfare issues fall under criminal‑law animal‑cruelty provisions and that law enforcement consults the agency when assessing husbandry practices.
Bradley Schoeman of the Office of Legislative Counsel told the committee the draft broadens the scope of what the agency could classify as farming and that statutory language is needed to restore municipal‑zoning preemption the committee has relied on before the court decision. Schoeman said the agency could pursue rulemaking, but that would not resolve the municipal zoning question; a statutory fix is necessary if the legislature intends to prevent towns from using zoning bylaws to curtail farming where the statute exempts it.
Committee members raised potential gaps and conflicts, asking whether towns could still use ordinances or other police‑power tools (for example noise or traffic restrictions) to address farm impacts. Municipal counsel on noise advised that zoning and ordinance authority overlap in some statutory sections and that outcomes will often depend on how a law or ordinance is applied and, if necessary, litigated.
Collier said the agency had circulated draft language and would be willing to return to walk members through it. He emphasized the tradeoffs between changing RAPs by rule (a longer public process under the Administrative Procedure Act) and changing statute (faster but with less formal public notice). The agency’s proposed package is intended to reduce town‑level barriers to farming while preserving agency authority to require nutrient‑management and other safeguards where needed.
The committee paused for lunch and said it would reconvene at 1 p.m. to continue review of the language that was distributed to members.
