Legislators are debating how to reformat a law that would exempt farmers from municipal regulation

By Kate Kampner, for the Community News Service

On Jan. 14, Caroline Sherman-Gordon, legislative director of farm lobbying group Rural Vermont, testified for the first time at the State House this session. Her testimony was one of many that jump-started the request to reevaluate a Vermont Supreme Court ruling that allowed towns to regulate farms in their community. 

Both chambers are discussing bills that would reassess the ruling, which reversed a 39-year exemption for farmers from municipal regulation, according to Sherman-Gordon. 

In the House, H.941, which specifically focuses on the exemption, passed on April 1 and was sent to the Senate Committee on Agriculture on April 7. 

S.323, a miscellaneous agriculture bill, passed the Senate on March 26 and is now in the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency, and Forestry. The bill covers a variety of agricultural subjects, including the revocation.

The Supreme Court ruling followed a dispute between Essex Junction resident Jason Struthers — who grew cannabis and raised ducks for a living on his property — and his neighbors, who complained about the noise and smell. 

Before the ruling, it was widely accepted that farms already governed by the state’s Required Agricultural Practices, including Struthers’ farm, would be exempt from local bylaws. But the May 30 ruling said that exemption no longer applied.

The RAPs, which aim to protect water quality in Vermont, apply to farms that are at least four contiguous acres. The regulations include a standard for soil conservation and nutrient management planning. 

Both bills propose to prohibit municipal regulation of farms that already fall under the RAPs, but they differ in the extent to which local governments would also have a say. 

The Senate version of the bill would change the RAPs’ eligibility criteria. For one, the regs would apply to farms that gross $5,000 or more each year; the current threshold is $2,000. 

“We wanted to keep away from hobby farms,” Sen. Russ Ingalls, R-Essex, said. 

Farms that are smaller than one acre could be regulated by municipalities if they raise animals. Under the new RAPs criteria, farms between one and four acres would have restrictions on livestock, while farms four acres and above would have none, according to Ingalls.

“But if it’s under one acre and you’re growing food, well you cannot stop somebody from growing food,” he said.

Rural Vermont doesn’t support the proposal. 

“The changes would make it harder to start a farm,” Sherman-Gordon said. 

Meanwhile, the House version strikes more of a compromise, according to Sherman-Gordon. 

H.941 would prohibit municipalities from regulating land used for orchards, maple production or for growing of food crops — regardless of whether the goods are sold — as well as ornamental plants. 

The bill would also prevent municipalities from making laws that restrict owners of poultry flocks to the point that they cannot manage their operation. The provision would not apply to roosters. 

The House bill would give municipalities some authority, however.

Municipalities would have the ability to regulate traffic-related aspects of a farm, such as parking and signage, and livestock enclosure proximity to roads, as well as siting and setbacks. This would apply to farms that are less than 0.75 acres on land that is not conserved. 

The bill would also form a group of experts to address conflicts between farmers in densely populated areas in the state.

“I hope we can still really bring any protection we can home,” Sherman-Gordon said. “Having a study committee where we can keep working together on how to address this is reasonable at this time.” 

Josh Hanford, director of intergovernmental relations for the Vermont League of Cities and Towns, also endorsed the idea of the study group..

 Hanford said the league would support legislation that subjects farms in densely populated areas to limited zoning. But totally removing municipalities from the equation in these areas, puts no one in charge of addressing conflicts, Hanford said.

He pointed to a court case in the town of Barton where a pig farm operation in the middle of Orleans Village received multiple complaints from neighbors for its smell, alleged mistreatment of animals and violations of zoning laws. 

“Agricultural operations in dense areas, to carve them out and say they can have no regulations applied to them, really is sort of a justice issue for property owners,” Hanford said. 

Rep. David Durfee, D-Bennington-3, chair of the House Agriculture Committee, said lawmakers hope to find ways to accommodate farmers’ perspectives, while also recognizing that there may be situations where traditional farming may not be well-suited in some communities. 

Even though both bills crossed over, Durfee said there are still disagreements.  

“Not everyone is satisfied, and I think no one is satisfied, not entirely,” he said.

Via Community News Service, a University of Vermont journalism internship