Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews strike-all amendment to S278, debates landlord lease limits, indoor cultivator rules and repeal of statute
Summary
The Government Operations & Military Affairs committee examined a strike-all amendment to S278 that reduces event permits, deletes delivery permits, adjusts licensing and effective dates, debated landlord-tenant lease language covering vaping, approved striking language to protect municipal setback authority, and discussed repealing 7 BSA §862 to resolve hemp jurisdiction conflicts.
The Government Operations & Military Affairs committee reviewed a strike-all amendment to S278, a bill updating Vermont's cannabis regulatory framework, and debated a set of changes including limits on event permits, the repeal of delivery-permit language, landlord-tenant lease provisions on 'lighted' cannabis and vaping, and a statutory repeal meant to resolve conflicts over hemp jurisdiction.
Sophie Sedatney of the Office of Legislative Council walked the committee through the amendment, saying the draft cut event permits from the 10-and-10 discussed previously to "not more than five permits for public events and five permits for private events," deleted the delivery-permit section and made conforming edits, removed an "integrated" license (reducing license types from seven to six), and adjusted effective dates. "Section 10A is going to take effect January 1, 2027," Sedatney told the committee, and she flagged other timing changes and a deleted cannabis business development fund that had been removed by Senate appropriations.
The committee spent significant time on section 30the rental-agreement provision that would allow landlords to prohibit "lighted cannabis or cannabis products within the rental premises." Members questioned whether the term "lighted" would cover vaping and other products intended for inhalation. One committee member described living in a multiunit building where "the entire apartment building smells like cannabis" and argued vapor can "seep into paint, drywall, woodwork" and leave residue that forces repainting and cleaning. Others urged caution and asked for evidence that vapor causes the same property damage as smoke, and recommended aligning any new language with existing tobacco or nicotine-device rules.
Chair James Pepper characterized the choice as within the committee's policy discretion, saying the matter "is a policy choice for this committee to decide." Members asked staff to cross-check landlord-tenant statutes, Department of Health guidance and HUD material to clarify whether lease language can, and how it should, define vaping or inhaled products. Committee discussion cited Vermont Department of Health guidance that points to HUD materials and noted that while HUD currently does not restrict e-cigarettes, housing providers can include broad definitions of "smoking" in leases that cover heated or similar products.
Members also debated section 11 language that could let permitted outdoor cultivators convert to indoor cultivator licenses and thereby avoid municipal setbacks and nuisance conditions imposed on outdoor operations. A concern was that a conversion could allow an operator to continue the same activities in dense residential areas without the local conditions that towns can place on outdoor cultivation. To address that risk, a committee member proposed striking the specific subsection (page 12, line 12) to preserve municipal authority or adding clearer statewide guard rails about what an indoor license permits. The committee signaled unanimous favorable thumbs to strike that language.
The committee discussed a housekeeping repeal in section 29 that would remove 7 BSA section 862, a vestige from the 2020 cannabis law. Staff explained the repeal is intended to resolve a conflict with 7 BSA 862A and with the shifting jurisdiction of the medical cannabis program and newer hemp rules; without the repeal, there is a legal argument that the newer hemp-related rules could be unlawful because of the older statutory language. Representative Hang questioned how the repeal would intersect with a miscellaneous agriculture bill that expands hemp authority; staff and members noted the repeal is intended to remove the inconsistency so that hemp rules already adopted can withstand legal challenge.
The committee agreed to ask staff for clarifying legal and technical information (including whether existing tenant-law language on tobacco and vaping is mirrored in Vermont statutes) and to return after a short recess. The chair recessed the meeting for 17 minutes and scheduled the committee to reconvene at 11:05 a.m.
The committee advanced the strike-all amendment in part (notably favoring striking the language at page 12, line 12) and flagged several provisions for further staff follow-up and potential future votes.
