Agency of Agriculture urges statutory fix to restore municipal farming exemption after Supreme Court ruling

Agency of Agriculture officials told a legislative committee on Friday they are pushing a targeted statutory change to restore a municipal zoning exemption for farming after a recent Vermont Supreme Court ruling narrowed who qualifies for the exemption.

“We have lost nearly 73,000 acres since 2017,” said Abby Wheeler, director of the agency’s Ag Development Division, citing agency land‑use data as she described the urgency of protecting productive farmland. Wheeler said Vermont has about 1.2 million acres in agricultural use, roughly half of which is in active production, and that small producers and value‑added businesses increasingly rely on predictable land‑use rules.

The agency’s legal counsel, Steve Collier, said the draft language represents a negotiated compromise built in consultation with the Vermont League of Cities and Towns (VLCT) and farm groups. He said the existing schedule F threshold — historically $2,000 in sales — produced inconsistent local interpretations and that VLCT initially proposed raising the threshold to $10,000. “We landed on $5,000 as a compromise,” Collier said, adding that the figure reflects practical and political tradeoffs intended to reduce litigation risk while maintaining broad protection for farming.

Collier and Wheeler emphasized that the proposal separates livestock from other farm activities because livestock production raises specific nutrient‑management and odor concerns. Under the agency’s framing, farming operations with livestock on very small acreage would have to demonstrate adequate land to manage animals and their wastes; otherwise towns could retain authority over the parcel. Collier said the goal is to allow backyard food production and small poultry flocks while avoiding situations — such as dense livestock on tiny suburban lots — that cannot meet required agricultural practices (RAPs).

Committee members pressed for clarity on several points: whether the Essex fact pattern (a small parcel reached by the courts) would be excluded by the $5,000 threshold, how the proposed change interacts with the RAPs and agency rulemaking, and whether findings language should be softened to avoid criticizing the court. Collier acknowledged that statute or rule changes could open other technical questions but said the agency prioritized a narrowly tailored fix to restore broad protections from municipal zoning.

The committee scheduled further testimony from Laura DiPietro, director of the agency’s Water Quality Division, who was invited to explain firm determinations and enforcement under RAPs. Members also asked that stakeholders including the Vermont Farm Bureau, Rural Vermont and VLCT be invited to testify as the section is refined.

The committee did not take a final vote on the language; members signaled willingness to continue negotiating thresholds and livestock clarifications before reporting the bill to the floor.