Committee reviews bill to bar most municipal regulation of growing food, flags cannabis and small‑farm issues

A legislative committee reviewed draft legislation that would generally bar municipalities from regulating farming and the cultivation of food while preserving municipal authority over construction of farm structures in Tier 1A (downtown) areas. Committee members and Office of Legislative Council staff said the draft is intended to restore the pre‑Taft Street status quo and clarify when municipal bylaws may and may not apply.

Bridal Chauvin, Office of Legislative Council, summarized the bill and called attention to three core pieces: restoring the pre‑Taft Street tax‑rate status quo, exempting most farming activity from municipal bylaw regulation, and explicitly allowing municipalities to regulate the construction of farm structures in Tier 1A areas. "This bill is kind of different than the other proposals," Chauvin said, and she warned the committee that the phrase "right to grow food" could be read as a separate legal right that creates ambiguity with zoning language.

Chauvin walked the committee through definitions in the draft. The bill links its scope to the State's required agricultural practices (RAPs) and defines backyard growing as "cultivation or other use of land for growing plants for food, including maple sap and orchard crops," and permits raising livestock "excluding roosters," when the activity complies with RAPs. Chauvin said the draft treats growing by individuals in municipal areas more narrowly than commercial farms subject to RAPs.

Committee members pressed staff on enforcement and technical thresholds. Chauvin noted that many small operations fall outside RAPs because RAPs apply only above certain thresholds (examples raised in committee: more than $2,000 in gross receipts or more than 4 acres). "If you have 99 chickens, 99 laying hens, that's not in compliance," Chauvin said, using the example to show that an operation may be below RAPs and still raise questions about oversight. Chauvin recommended a session‑law provision authorizing the Agency of Agriculture to create rules (and an administrative authorization/variance process) to address operations that fall below RAPs thresholds so those farms or backyard growers have a clear pathway to demonstrate appropriate nutrient and waste management.

Members also raised concerns about the bill's Tier 1A exception for construction of farm structures. One member asked whether an existing farm in a Tier 1A area that needs to rebuild a barn after a fire could be prevented from doing so; Chauvin confirmed construction of a farm structure in Tier 1A would be subject to municipal regulation under the current drafting, which prompted calls for a grandfathering approach or clearer language protecting existing farms and succession transfers.

The committee discussed how the bill's changes could affect Vermont's separate cannabis statutes. Chauvin warned that because the cannabis statute refers to the same farming/required agricultural practices language, amending the farming statute "would also kind of scoop in that other section" and could broaden exemptions for cannabis cultivation from municipal bylaws. Committee members asked staff to draft language that would restore the pre‑Taft Street cannabis status quo (if the committee wants that result) and to identify precisely how the amendments would change cannabis regulation.

Members asked staff for multiple drafting changes before moving forward: remove the word "right" and instead say "growing food" to reduce ambiguity; add a grandfather clause or transition rule for existing farms (including guidance on succession and sale); add a session‑law provision directing the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate rules or an authorization process for small operations that fall below RAPs thresholds; and clarify the effective date (several members suggested "on passage" rather than a January effective date). Chauvin agreed to draft proposed language and return it to the committee.

No formal motion or vote occurred during the meeting. The committee signaled it may schedule a bill markup and possible vote once members have reviewed the revised language; staff said they would try to present redrafted text at a follow‑up session. The committee invited stakeholders to submit further input before any formal vote.

Questions and clarifications from the committee that remain open include: the exact RAPs authorizing statute (discussed as administrative rules with an authorizing statute referenced), how succession and ownership transfers will be treated by any grandfathering clause, whether horticulture/Christmas tree/silviculture operations should be explicitly included or excluded from the bill's protections, and the precise interplay with the cannabis statute. The committee asked staff to provide language and citations and to return for additional review before a vote.

The committee scheduled additional consideration and possible markup at the next meeting; no final action was taken at this session.