Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Legislative counsel outlines House, Senate approaches to limit municipal regulation of farming after Taft Street
Loading...
Summary
Legislative counsel Brandon Jones told the Agriculture committee the Senate and House versions of the miscellaneous agriculture bill take different approaches to restore pre–Taft Street limits on municipal regulation: the Senate favors a broad statutory fix while the House adds targeted exceptions for very small parcels and a stakeholder study.
Legislative Counsel Brandon Jones presented a side-by-side comparison of competing House and Senate drafts of a miscellaneous agriculture bill before the Agriculture committee on April 15, explaining each draft’s approach to the Vermont Supreme Court’s Taft Street decision.
Jones said the Taft Street decision had led to uncertainty by permitting municipalities to regulate some farming activities even when the activities are subject to the required agricultural practices (RAPS) rule. Both the House and Senate bills aim to restore the pre–Taft Street status quo, Jones said, but they take different tactics.
The Senate version explicitly references the Supreme Court case and would amend the cited statutory section (referred to in testimony as "44 13 d") to restore the status quo with limited caveats. Jones said the Senate text includes a broader set of protected farming activities—specifically calling out fiber, Christmas trees and horticultural crops—and contains a blanket prohibition on municipal regulation of small backyard poultry.
The House version uses different language and does not name the case; instead it amends the statute and adds narrowly scoped exceptions that would allow municipalities to regulate some farming activity under specific circumstances. Jones summarized the most consequential House carve-out: a municipality may regulate some aspects of farming on parcels that are under 0.75 acres, not operating as of 07/01/2026, and not conserved land; any such municipal regulation would be limited to matters such as ingress and egress, pedestrian safety, parking, signage and setbacks.
Jones also said the bills diverge on how they amend the RAPS rule. The Senate draft would change certain RAPS eligibility criteria (including increasing an income threshold referenced in testimony from $2,000 to $5,000) and give the Secretary of Agriculture authority to regulate the raising, feeding or management of livestock on parcels smaller than certain acreages in defined circumstances. The House bill instead adds a stakeholder study led by the Secretary of Agriculture to examine conflicts between farmers and municipalities, stocking densities on parcels under 10 acres, potential RAPS changes, enforcement tied to health and safety, and protections for personal food production; testimony referenced a report due in late January (transcript reference included both January 13 and January 31 as possible due dates).
Committee members voiced differing views: several senators said the Senate text ‘‘solves the problem’’ caused by Taft Street and urged replacing House language with the Senate draft; others said the House approach provides needed municipal flexibility. Chair Ingalls asked staff and counsel to coordinate with Attorney Collier and the Agency of Agriculture and scheduled a follow-up check-in later in the morning.
No formal vote was taken on either draft during the session.
