Farmers tell Senate panel S.323 should clarify farm exemptions and ease permitting for value‑added activities
Loading...
Summary
Farmers and dairy producers told the Senate Agriculture Committee that S.323 should clarify which farm activities are exempt from municipal rules, and witnesses described costly permitting delays — including wastewater and Act 250 interpretations that affected on‑farm kitchens and a dry‑ice business. The committee scheduled more testimony next week.
Farmers urged the Senate Agriculture Committee on Thursday to tighten and clarify proposed language in the miscellaneous agriculture bill, S.323, to protect small farms’ ability to add on‑farm kitchens, educational events and value‑added production without triggering additional municipal or Act 250 permitting.
Kieran Killeen, co‑owner of Killeen Crossroads Farm, told the committee he supports the bill’s intent but said the current accessory on‑farm business (AOFB) exemptions exclude construction of facilities for educational events and farm stays. “I cannot construct a kitchen to produce those value‑added products and run educational activities through that kitchen the way the current law is written,” Killeen said, arguing modest changes could allow classes and demonstrations while guarding against broad commercial uses such as weddings or large private events.
The testimony centered on the gap between the statute’s processing and sales exemptions and the needs of farms trying to diversify revenue. Killeen described a desire to host cooking classes, tasting events and small instructional gatherings that would pair production with education and a modest fee, saying those activities would help small farms become viable.
Several witnesses described concrete regulatory barriers that they said frustrate that goal. Becky Castle of Fisher Brothers Farm recounted repeated delays and added costs after seeking health‑department clearance for a bakery and related value‑added activities. Castle said ANR flagged her operation under Act 250 because the farm sells dry ice and other products to outside customers, leading to 8–14 months of permitting work, rejected engineering submittals and tens of thousands of dollars in fees. “We invested $150,000 of our own dollars,” Castle said, and called the agencies’ approach inconsistent and sometimes unhelpful.
Castle and other farmers said the Agency of Agriculture has generally been cooperative on technical support, but they described the Department of Environmental Conservation/ANR and Act 250 reviews as opaque and punitive in practice. Castle said that dry ice sales — used widely by farms to ship frozen products and by the Agency of Agriculture itself for pathogen surveillance — became entangled in land‑use review despite being a modest accessory activity carried out inside an existing barn.
Shannon Hill, who identified herself with the Vermont Dairy Producers Alliance, praised committee efforts to return regulatory clarity to the state Department of Agriculture and warned against municipalities creating inconsistent rules. Hill urged lawmakers to avoid a patchwork of local standards that would raise costs and complicate operations that cross town lines.
A larger dairy operator who identified himself as Tucker described managing 1,500 cows across roughly 3,700 acres spanning many towns and said municipal variability can add inefficiency and expense. He voiced support for S.323 language that would reaffirm that required agricultural practices and farm structures are exempt from municipal rules and welcomed proposed tax exemptions for farms.
Several witnesses also urged the committee to revisit current‑use enrollment procedures, arguing annual reenrollment and shifting local designations can produce unexpected tax bills and reduce land values for farmers. Mark Magnan, a third‑generation dairy farmer, said the reenrollment process causes confusion and compared neighboring states’ farm supports, urging Vermont to consider streamlining regulation or reallocating resources to better help farmers stay in business.
Committee members thanked the speakers and asked for drafted verbiage. The chair said the committee would continue the discussion next week and invited witnesses to return. No formal vote or amendment took place at the session.
The committee listed several topics for follow‑up testimony: language in section 6 of S.323, current‑use enrollment rules, and related permitting questions. Committee staff asked witnesses to submit draft statutory language and supporting details for consideration during next week’s hearings.
