Vermont committee advances compromise on farm zoning after Supreme Court ruling; livestock rules remain unsettled

A legislative committee met Feb. 20 to consider changes to state law after a recent Supreme Court decision narrowed the municipal exemption for farming, hearing testimony from the Agency of Agriculture and multiple stakeholder groups on a draft amendment covering sections 1–3 of a miscellaneous agriculture bill.

Steve Collier of the Agency of Agriculture told the committee the agency initially wanted to restore the prior interpretation but, after talks with the League of Cities and Towns, accepted some compromises. Collier summarized the existing statutory tests — a four-acre acreage test and a commercial-sales threshold — and said those standards produced inconsistent results “at the margins,” citing cases of small-scale poultry and backyard livestock being treated as farms for zoning purposes.

The agency and many stakeholders agreed on two core elements: (1) lowering the livestock acreage threshold from four acres to one acre for the purpose of municipal zoning exemption so that livestock kept on less than an acre could be subject to municipal rules in some cases; and (2) creating a statewide “right to grow food” that would protect growing plants (vegetables, fruit trees, mushrooms, maple production), small-scale poultry (excluding roosters) and the ability to harvest, donate and sell plant-derived products from municipal zoning that would otherwise functionally prohibit those uses. Collier said the 1-acre proposal is meant to ensure a minimum land base for livestock nutrient and waste management while preserving broad protections for plant-based food production.

Not all questions are settled. The League of Cities and Towns, represented in the hearing, urged that municipalities be given limited zoning authority in mapped “tier 1” areas (the state’s denser, planned-growth downtowns and village centers) to address conflicts tied to density — setbacks, screening, lighting, traffic and safety — and warned that inventing new, untested zoning definitions could invite litigation. Scott Henford said tier 1 mapping will concentrate development pressure and that some towns are already using zoning enforcement to address problematic farms.

Agricultural advocacy groups, led in testimony by Caroline Sherman Gordon, legislative director with Rue of Vermont, said coalition negotiators have reached broad agreement on much of the draft language and urged a stocking-density approach — a relational standard tying the number of animals to the land base — as a way to prevent nuisance conditions without unduly curtailing legitimate farming. “We’re, like, 85–90% there,” Caroline said of negotiations, while urging clearer statutory language on how livestock in tier 1a areas would be handled.

The Farm Bureau, through Amber Perry, said it opposes extending municipal authority into tier 1b areas because the current mapping could capture active farmland across many towns and produce a patchwork of regulation that would burden multi-town operations. Participants noted that regional planning commissions produce maps and that LURB approves them; Rutland was cited as likely to have properties approved this summer, illustrating how mapping timelines will affect implementation.

Stakeholders also debated grandfathering existing farms. The League proposed exempting longstanding farms in mapped areas but excluding operations already subject to zoning enforcement actions (citing the Village of Orleans and Essex Junction as examples). The Agency warned that simple grandfathering can be difficult to administer years later and suggested instead narrowing municipal authority to specific, demonstrable public-safety or public-health livestock impacts while empowering the agency to act when farms cause harms.

Several groups urged formation of a study committee to examine longer-term issues — including protecting agricultural soils from development and defining stocking-density standards — and to continue the negotiations this weekend and into the committee’s next meetings. The chair told stakeholders the committee aims to finish drafting language and submit it by Tuesday, stressing the crossover deadline and asking parties to continue working toward consensus.

No formal motions or votes were taken during the Feb. 20 meeting; the session closed with the committee pausing briefly and planning to reconvene at 10:30.