Senate hearing hears broad support for restoring farm zoning exemption, splits over livestock rules and income thresholds
Loading...
Summary
Lawmakers heard unified support for restoring municipal zoning exemptions for farming after a Supreme Court ruling, but witnesses disagreed over livestock rules on small parcels, whether to amend Title 24 or RAPs, and whether to raise the current $2,000 income trigger to $5,000.
Steve Collier, an attorney identified by the committee, told senators on Feb. 4 that the Supreme Court’s May decision prompted an urgent, multi-stakeholder effort to restore the municipal zoning exemption for farming and to clarify the law.
"Everyone in this room believes that farming would primarily be exempt from zoning and that the exemption should be restored," Collier said, summarizing the broad consensus he said participants had reached while noting remaining differences over details. He warned that the prior framework left gaps on eligibility and land base that now require legislative fixes.
Collier highlighted two recurring technical gaps: the income/eligibility trigger linked to the RAPs and the lack of a consistent land-base test. He described the current bright-line 4-acre standard and the potential for anomalous results without limits, saying, "But what if you put 50 pigs there? You know, if you put 50 pigs on that half-acre plot..." as an illustration of the regulatory concern.
Farm advocates led by Jake Claro, Farm to Plate director at the Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund, supported restoring broad protections for cultivation and small-scale poultry and urged caution on expanding the RAPs or changing criteria that could unintentionally alter farm status. The coalition argued for protecting a "right to grow food," including home gardens and small poultry operations, and for administrative discretion to assess livestock on a parcel-by-parcel basis rather than stripping protections broadly.
"Our suggestion is to keep it at $2,000 right now," Claro said, responding to proposals to raise the income threshold. Coalition witnesses said the $2,000 benchmark has not been rigorously justified for an increase to $5,000 and noted that USDA measures sometimes use a different lower threshold.
Municipal representatives pressed for a different approach. Josh Ganford, director of intergovernmental relations (representing municipalities), proposed amending Title 24 to add farms to the list of functional uses that municipal bylaws may not interfere with, while preserving municipal authority in dense, growth-focused "Tier 1a" areas and over safety, health and infrastructure issues.
"We would instead propose adding farms to the list of limitations on municipal bylaws in Title 24," Ganford said, arguing that approach would be easier to enforce, more predictable for municipalities and would avoid reopening RAPs rulemaking.
Samantha Sheehan, municipal policy and advocacy specialist for the Vermont League of Cities and Towns, told senators municipal regulation focuses on safety and local impacts and raised the practical enforcement question of how to distinguish pets from agricultural animals administratively. "Imagine going into a town office and proving that your goat is a pet and not for harvest," Sheehan said, illustrating the burden municipalities fear if determinations become subjective.
Witnesses disagreed about whether to address the exemption primarily through Title 24 amendments or to make parallel changes to RAPs. Farm coalition witnesses favored a Title 24 fix and urged limited, technical RAPs adjustments only where necessary; agency counsel said a package approach that amends Title 24 and makes targeted RAPs changes would reduce uncertainty and streamline implementation.
Committee members repeatedly focused on three concrete decision points: the proper acreage threshold for automatic coverage (the existing 4-acre rule and proposals for protections between 1 and 4 acres), how to treat livestock on parcels smaller than 1 acre, and whether to raise the income threshold from $2,000 to $5,000. No formal motion or vote was taken during the session; the committee recessed for five minutes at the end of the transcript.
The hearing drew a mix of farm advocates, municipal representatives and agency counsel; all witnesses emphasized that they were trying to balance protecting agricultural activity statewide with municipalities’ interest in managing density, safety and infrastructure in growth areas. The committee later scheduled additional testimony after the break.
