Vermont witnesses urge narrow, equity-focused rules if towns gain power to regulate farms

Witnesses at a legislative hearing on municipal authority over farming urged lawmakers to proceed cautiously if towns are granted power to regulate agricultural activity, emphasizing protections for small-scale growers, equity in zoning, and the need for technical state guidance.

"For the record, I'm Michelle Munro. I'm the executive director of the Vermont Association of Conservation Districts," Munro said, and she urged the committee not to resolve municipal authority by broad changes to the Required Agricultural Practices (RAPs). She said the RAPs' definition of farming is a separate policy question from where municipalities should be allowed to exercise oversight, and warned that changing RAPs could sweep small backyard operations into heavier regulation.

Jean Hamilton, director of program development for the Land Access and Opportunity Board (LAOB), told the committee LAOB represents communities who have been historically marginalized and recommended three protections if municipal authority expands: a clear, actionable inventory and protection plan for community food land; explicit anti‑exclusion language in municipal zoning so urban agriculture is an intended use; and resources and training so towns can regulate agriculture equitably. "We must require that municipal zoning codes do not reinscribe exclusionary policies," Hamilton said.

Ornella Matas Figueroa, LAOB's director of community engagement and advocacy, framed the concern in broader food‑security terms, saying consolidation in the food and agricultural sector has reduced land access and that preserving opportunities to grow food is central to health and housing security for many Vermonters.

Jake Claro (identified for the record as the farm‑plate director at the Vermont Sustainable Joust Fund) summarized the history of local planning guidance and compared language proposed by the Agency of Agriculture and farm coalitions. He said there is substantial overlap — both agency and coalition language would broadly exempt cultivation and typical farm structures from municipal zoning — but tension remains over livestock definitions, income thresholds, and whether to amend the RAPs themselves.

Witnesses repeatedly urged a targeted, location‑based approach rather than reopening RAPs. Munro and others favored limiting municipal authority to specific dense areas (the committee discussion referenced "tier 1a" downtown designations) and leaving technical determinations — for example, whether a particular land base can support a given number of animals — to the Agency of Agriculture. Munro suggested towns be required to consult the agency when they adopt livestock limits to promote statewide consistency and rely on agricultural expertise.

Committee members asked for mapping and data: staff and witnesses were asked to determine how much prime agricultural soil lies within proposed tiered areas and how exempting those areas from Act 250 protections could affect offsets and conservation funding. The conservation districts said they have engaged GIS support to assemble those shapefiles.

Members closed by noting urgency: the committee requested clearer draft language and comparative proposals from stakeholders so it can move quickly. The chair also announced appropriations developments: the Appropriations Committee included full funding requested for Bridges to Health and restored $1,000,000 for the LAOB that had previously been swept.

The committee will reconvene with additional bill walk‑throughs and witnesses at the next scheduled meeting.