Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: It is sort of an amalgam of the other two positions. It is not meant to be this committee's position at this point anyway. It is more to help us think about where are we in our own thinking individually than collectively. I think sometimes actually seeing language in bill form can help move things along a little bit faster. So I won't say anything more about it. I'll let Bradley read through the language. It's just two pages, two and a half pages maybe, and then we can ask questions. We can have a quick conversation. It's be on the screen. He's gonna put

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: it up. Yes. Will it

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: be in our committee page? It's on our committee page now. Thank you. Yeah.

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. Bradley Sheldon, office of legislative council, and I will share my screen here. See the bill up on up on the screen? Yeah. You do. Great. Maximize this to make it more readable. Okay. And so this bill, as chair Durfee stated that this bill is kind of different than the other proposals that you've had. So it's meant to restore the pre tax status quo. And it also prohibits municipalities from regulating the right to grow food. And this bill does permits municipal regulation of the construction of farm structures in tier 1A areas. And we will and those are mostly downtown areas. So we'll go through. There's a findings and intent section that is pared down. It doesn't mention Taft Street. And it just says the intent of the general or the finding of the general assembly is that it has been the intent and the controlling law that municipalities shall not regulate farming, including construction of farm structures. And it's purpose of this act to reinstate that assumption with the exception of construction of a farm structure within a tier one a area established in accordance with 10 b c sixty thirty four. Okay. So the first section here, this language, addresses Task Street directly by saying that mark farming that meets the minimum threshold criteria in the required agricultural practices and is therefore required to comply with the required agricultural practices. And then it separates out the construction of a farm structure with the exception of farm structures in tier one a areas. And then here's an addition of what's been different so far is the right to grow food. And as I've discussed this with Ellen and also Mike, we're concerned about the language of creating a right to grow food. So we're just flagging this for you. This bill amends, the municipal by municipal bylaw section in the Vermont statutes. And the right to grow food, the word right might be confused with by right zoning, and create some ambiguity. Our recommendation would be to, take out the right and just say to grow food. That's for the committee to consider in this as you debate. So the right to grow food includes a cultivation or other use of land for growing plants for food, including maple sap and orchard crops. And then the raising, feeding, and managing of livestock, excluding roosters, in compliance to the required agricultural practices rule, provided the land base is sufficient for appropriate nutrient and waste management as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture, Food, and Markets. Let's get to the rest of this. So renumbering, we define farming, and we also define livestock, the same meaning in statutes, and the effective date of the bill. A couple of things. I know that in the past, this committee has said that they may or may not want to address cannabis in this bill. So this does not address cannabis. However, there is another statute that does refer to the section that regulates cannabis that would regulate cannabis in the same way.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: It would prohibit

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: municipal regulation of growing cannabis in the same way that other kinds of farming would. And so if we amend this section, it would also scoop up that other section, that other statute, and bring cannabis in to prohibit municipal regulation of growing cannabis. If this committee did not want that, we would recommend adding a statute to or adding a section in this bill to delete that section. And so that's one thing to flag. It's, seven PSA eight six nine f as in Frank.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Well, that's a classic illustration of the unintended consequence.

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: That's exactly right.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: It's something that links to this that we're not looking at and don't know about. Yes. Okay.

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. And that's exactly right. So as we amend this, it would also affect that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Thank you for catching that, flagging that. Yes. And then there was one other thing, and then we'll take questions.

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: I do. I have another recommendation because there's this section with the raising the feeding, managing livestock in compliance to the required agricultural practices rule. If you have 99 chickens, 99 laying hens, that's not in compliant. They don't have to comply with the required agricultural practices rule unless they meet some other threshold, right? More than $2,000 in gross receipts, having more than four acres, something of that sort. So raising those chickens wouldn't necessarily have to comply with the required agricultural practices rule. And then the rest of this says that provided the land base is sufficient for appropriate nutrient and waste management is determined by the Secretary of Agriculture. So the recommendation would be to ask the agency to make rules that would address scenarios that don't necessarily fall within the required agricultural practices rule. And so how do you manage 99 laying hens as opposed to 100 laying hens, or 14 goats as opposed to 15 goats, something like that, asking the agency to create that rule and then also create a process for applying for a variance to do that. And so that would be a recommended session section or something of the sort to effectuate this piece more effectively and make it clearer for people who might want to do this. And that's all

[Unidentified Committee Member A]: I have for the committee.

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm happy to answer questions.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So just before we turn to the questions, why would a variance be needed? So you said ask the agency to develop rules and then a processor asking for a variance.

[Unidentified Committee Member B]: RAPs.

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: So the RAPs has variance requirements to setback requirements for certain gardens and things. They have a process for requesting a variance to local other kinds of zoning and regulations and things of that sort. The word variance, I think, is not as I don't mean that as a variance for municipal zoning because this would prohibit municipal zoning. It would be trying to come up with a system in a way to ensure that someone who's doing this is is complying or has received some kind of authorization saying, this has sufficient land base and this has sufficient nutrient and waste management to have your 14 goats. And so some kind of permitting process to make sure that that happens through the Secretary of Agriculture. Otherwise, it might be through municipal zoning to create some kind of process to make sure that that is actually happening and that could create some patchwork there. Okay, thank you. First?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, a couple of things. What happens,

[Unidentified Committee Member A]: I mean, maybe we should get somebody from the AFM into the analysis, but what happens when you meet the requirements, you're a farm, because you meet the requirements of the wraps, but upon inspection, up here, you're not following the rules of the wraps.

[Unidentified Committee Member B]: You're fine, yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member A]: Right. So but if you have 15 goats and whatever you're doing is not following the rules of the wraps, is it still an agency problem or or can municipalities then come in and have a certain amount of jurisdiction?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Are you saying currently under current law or previous? Yeah. Well, law. That

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: would be an agency issue

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: to

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: find and ensure that there's compliance that might have someone come out and say, this is what you did wrong, you need to fix it or give a fine, things of that sort. So they do have mechanisms to enforce the rules.

[Unidentified Committee Member B]: So you've got to be a significant in the small firms like that. You've got to be a significant contributor to pollution. Right. That's what

[Unidentified Committee Member A]: I would assume otherwise. Yeah. And let's litigation. Then also in the 14 or 15 goats. So if you fall, if you don't meet the wraps, then can municipalities have jurisdiction over the 14 goat farms?

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: So this would say no. And so that's what this bill sets out to do is to give individuals the right to the phrasing as grow food, which includes raising, feeding, managing livestock. So

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: let's definitely come back to this question or talking more about that point. And Greg, you have a

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: Yeah, so this is, which titles are the piece of RAPs in? Which title is statute?

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: So the RAPs rule is just an administrative rule. So it's available on the Agency of Agriculture's website as an administrative rule. It's also posted on Lexis for the official rule.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: Where are the reps established?

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: The authorizing authority would be listed in the rule. I don't know the authorizing authority for the private agricultural practices off the top of my head. But the rule would state what statute authorizes

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: the decision making. Ellen or Mike may have come in earlier in January and given us a presentation that might have shown that citation. So you can write

[Unidentified Committee Member B]: Title six or Title 10 wrath?

[Unidentified Committee Member A]: Title six.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: Title ten six. And

[Unidentified Committee Member A]: then 24 is all municipal sovereign.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: Yeah. John, if we pass this as written in tier 1A, municipality would not be able to regulate farming operations, but they would be able to regulate construction of a farm structure. Am I reading that correctly? That is correct. So does that mean if there's a farm existing in such an area and their barn burns down or they need to build a new animal shelter, they could be told they can't do it?

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: So if there was already an existing farm in a tier one area and they wanted to build a farm or rebuild it or if

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: they needed they could build another

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: shelf for,

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: you know, they're added 10 sheep, now one's not big enough, so they build a new one.

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, building a new one would would certainly fall under under this this exception. Right? If they're in a tier one area and they wanna build a new facility to to house more chickens, you know? Why would we do that? And So an existing farm, why

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: would we wanna do that? Am I missing something? Well, because

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Say that question.

[Unidentified Committee Member B]: Because the Vermont lease and cities and towns wanted to have control over what little acreage there was in tier one a. Where I was concerned was they wanted to go into tier one b, which is the the new and expansion. And tier one a, they said, is their city centers, like, in Tash Street, like, may may have been. I don't know the map for Essex, but Downtown Burlington, Downtown Montpelier, Downtown Rutland. They they wanna have a little bit of control over that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So so I think that's more or less the the answer to that question. But are you thinking I don't wanna put words in your mouth that an existing farm could somehow be treated differently instead somebody creating a barn and a farm from scratch.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: I'm just thinking if there are rare instances of an existing farm that needs to expand within their farm, they would be limited. Whereas someone just because they happen to be 100 meters over that way doesn't

[Unidentified Committee Member B]: have that regulation. Could we write in a grandfather clause that if you're an existing farm in a tier one A, you afford all the protections of a farm in tier one B?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Thinking Tier two. And making note

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: of that, and its other clause of some sort. Then, I have a couple of other questions. One is this right to grow food, That's an expansion of what we had before. Intent, right?

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. And that there is no other section in our law that refers to the right to grow food. And so some concern is creating a new right in this way could potentially have unintended consequences or be confused where it's placed, which is an immunisable bylaw zoning statute. And so the recommendation would be to be mindful of the word right in the context of the statute might mean something different

[Unidentified Committee Member A]: and cause confusion.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So do you are you thinking then that we could address that concern by saying, bylaw shall not under the chapter shall not regulate against this municipal bylaws. Instead of saying the rate to grow food, say growing food.

[Unidentified Committee Member A]: Yeah. I I think that would be perfect.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Rephrasing it that way, that's that would be enough to solve that problem?

[Unidentified Committee Member A]: I think so.

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: I think so.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Well, then let's make a note of that too. And then I would say, and I'll look around to see if anybody feels differently, we can have the conversation, but doing whatever we need to do to ensure that we're not changing existing statute that allows or permits local government to regulate cannabis one way or the other, that either loosens it or tightens it. We don't want to be doing that here inadvertently. We certainly don't want to be doing it inadvertently. And I think if we want to do that intentionally, that's a different conversation and probably not one that would be limited to this committee. The entire conversation won't be limited to this committee for sure.

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: If I may, the authorizing statute for the RAPs is six BSA four thousand eight and ten and forty eight thousand one hundred eight.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yes. A. Excuse me, 40. Okay, go ahead, John.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Why do we always do our effective dates in January? It seems like this will not be on passage.

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: We could change it to beyond passage.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Right, I agree, I agree. Take it down. Yes, go ahead. Just want to wait till Bradley's done scribbling their job.

[Unidentified Committee Member A]: Just a couple of things. Your discussion, also we should figure out what happens with, say, succession of a farm. It's grandfathered, there's a farm here, but either somebody buys it or even a family member takes it over, same sort of thing. Oftentimes, that gives a municipality a wedge to say this isn't the original farm anymore. We talked about it in one way.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We're gonna Yeah, we're continuing to try and get answers to that question, and I've asked the agency to do some work on that, and the conservation districts may also be looking at it from a different set of information. The other thing I just noticed was, Bradley, isn't there a larger

[Unidentified Committee Member A]: definition of farming as far as, This doesn't include flower farms. This doesn't include Christmas tree farms. Those sort of weird one offs that aren't food and they aren't livestock, but certainly an agency's mind.

[Unidentified Committee Member B]: Christmas tree would be silviculture. I think that's Is it still farming, though?

[Unidentified Committee Member A]: I think it's farms, right? We can pull the statute up, and I can

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: share my screen, and we can take it.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So do want to avoid capturing something that we don't intend to capture?

[Unidentified Committee Member A]: I just want the whole set of farming to be included. So if I have a farm that grows flowers for weddings, I'm being regulated by a municipality, whereas this person next door to us on

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: her chickens is not good. And so this bill does cite the statue. I'm gonna switch to sharing my full screen. Farming. Yep. Farming means cultivation or use of land for growing food, fiber, Christmas trees, maple sap, horticulture or agricultural crops, orchard crops, raising, feeding management of livestock, poultry, pitch. So is this referenced then? Yeah. This is referenced in this bill. And then so this is all the things I guess I don't need to read it to the committee.

[Unidentified Committee Member B]: But does flower farm show

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: up there?

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: Yeah, borticulture.

[Unidentified Committee Member A]: And composting too, right?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, but does the right, if we're establishing a new, not right, so we'll stop using that word, but if we're also explicitly saying that towns can't regulate growing food, then I'm not sure that you're addressing your concern. Well, if there

[Unidentified Committee Member A]: are farms following the rats, then I have a thought.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So large farms following the rats. Exactly. Okay, so there's

[Unidentified Committee Member A]: still That universe is included in all these one offs, like Christmas trees and maple syrup.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: Fruit food may not extend to growing Christmas trees. Right.

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Yes. So this bill kind of The definition of farming comes into effect with farms, right? Farms that are subject to the required agricultural practices procedure. When we're creating the opportunity for individuals to grow food in any municipal area. This bill defines what you can grow in a municipal area a little bit more narrowly. And so this bill defines what you can grow if you're not a farm, just in your backyard. The cultivation use of land for growing plants for food, including for maple sap and orchard crops. And so that's what you would be able to grow. And then you'd also be able to raise, feed, and manage livestock, excluding roosters, so long as you're doing compliance with required agricultural practices, etcetera. And so that if you wanted more in there, then I think you would have to expand the definition of what you're including in growing food.

[Unidentified Committee Member B]: Could you say, the right to grow food, which includes all definitions under firm?

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. And that and essentially, that would be

[Unidentified Committee Member B]: Horticulture, Christmas trees, and maple sap.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: If if if we felt that that that we wanted to be that expansive, there are certainly ways to do it, except really. I think we just wanna be careful about being able to justify why are we adding that now. And there may be good justification for it, but what was brought to us, so I'll go back for a second here. Language, it's not identical to anything that was brought to us, but it doesn't go beyond, I think, the boundaries of what anybody brought to us. So it goes beyond boundaries of maybe one or maybe one other one, but not like of all of them. I did make the distinction, and this is somewhat arbitrary, between tier 1a, so I said tier 1a rather than tier 1A and B. That may be a difficult lift for some sick people. And then I thought, let's also be mindful of the fact that there are zoning and municipal high laws that control physical things, and then there are non physical things like towers of operation. And we can think about them and talk about them differently here, and maybe that would help us get to a point where more people would be able to buy into it. I don't know whether this is the right place or not. It's not fair. Greg, you had a Yeah, question, Jake

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: I was just wondering, you know, I see part of the idea behind not including farm structures in tier one A. I'm just trying to understand, like, I know VLCT mentioned that they would like to see, you know, all farming activity regulated, I think is what this if I'm remembering right, within tier one a regulated by municipalities. Yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member C]: What I'm sure I guess I I would like more clarity on what their reasoning ultimately is for that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I I think I I can but I would love to know.

[Unidentified Committee Member B]: They didn't say in tier one a. They said anywhere we're at two fifty is restricted. Because they have zoning and planning and and that's one a and one b. One b, if you come up and you draw your maps and you call this area one b, housing is not not under act two fifty jurisdiction anymore. So they said anywhere was not under act two fifty jurisdiction, they wanted to have zoning. And I have a problem with that in one b, because one b can feed some of our most beautiful, arable farmland, period.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: One of the things I think that will be helpful if we can get it, and this is now a question of how long do we wait sitting here hoping that we can get it versus moving it forward, but would be how much arable farmland or how much actual production farmland is there in tier one a and tier one b. When we were looking at the pictures earlier during the working lands, there was a Manusky farm. And I I I meant to ask, where is that farm? Because I imagine Manusky is probably Community Garden. Yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member B]: So

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I guess we can have clarifying questions are welcome, and also, is this what we want to do question of what do we want to do?

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: Getting the sense that if we need more information would be related just to tier one, because I'm not hearing a lot of people, any people, in committee saying we should allow municipalities to control farming in tier two. Yeah. One question I had there was do any municipalities have bylaws that would regulate what you do in your country that might affect your neighbor? Like I'm thinking, okay, he's got a right to grow food and I have the right to tap maple trees. So I grow a maple tree in my yard. In twenty years, you can't grow food anymore because it shaves. Offer now. There

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: might be bylaws that regulate noise, sound, hours of operation for businesses. Maybe not necessarily. We're not familiar with bylaws that say you can't plant a certain thing.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: It's kind of weird that my dad the right to grow food, but I have a right to grow a maple tree that would make it so he can't grow food.

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: And those are kind of like the sticky questions that would come up. And especially if you I don't want say open the can of worms, but just raise the issue and draw attention to the issue of what this could mean, what it means to grow more food, and those kind of potential conflicts that might arise between neighbors and things of the sort might be worth discussing and things of that sort. So it does make a lot of sense. If someone has a big maple tree, then all of a sudden, there's a bunch of shade on their neighbor's yard and they can't grow anything, what's the solution there?

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: True of free trees.

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: And the same could be true of just about anything that someone might be upset about, like a fence or something like that. And it doesn't even have to be related to agriculture. So some of these questions are as old as time.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: Astoria building. I'm just thinking about unintended concepts.

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: And that's exactly

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: right. So, Bradley, are you clear on what we

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: So I was just about to go

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: over that

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: with you. So you'd like me to add a grandfather clause for tier one A, growing to add not a right, just growing food instead of the right to grow food. Would you like me to add a session law section on rulemaking about how someone could comply with Asking it Yeah.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: If you wanna right. If you be helpful for us to see that to better understand it.

[Unidentified Committee Member B]: Okay. Okay.

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Change it to on passage. I don't have clear instruction what you want me to do with cannabis.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We don't want cannabis we don't want the law to change on cannabis. So this will do that.

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. We don't wanna get I suppose the law on cannabis now is linked to what we're changing. So I don't think we have I don't think the committee can avoid changing the cannabis law.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: That's fine. I'm sorry. Yeah, I didn't mean to say that it's okay to write some language that keeps in place ultimately the same on the ground.

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: And and so and you want the post tapestry or pre tapestry? Pre tapestry. Okay.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: If we need to think more about that, yeah, how do we do that?

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: Because I think the pre tax street status quo would be that municipalities cannot regulate cannabis with some exceptions. And so there's more exceptions there. And so restoring the pre tax rate status quo might enable more people to grow cannabis.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So let's talk about that. And maybe I'm confused, but we wanna be clear on that, that it's not our intent, at least in this conversation, to change anything that had to do with cannabis up until May. If there was something that was changed in May about cannabis, we should probably be clear on that So how about this? I can draft something that would restore the pre tax status quo for cannabis.

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: And then we can talk about what that status quo is when I show that And then the committee can amend that language from there, or not amend, but we could change the

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: way we're shopping. Wasn't the reason for all the ducks because Essex could regulate his cannabis, so he brought in all the ducks to be a farm? Well, he needed the I think the fertilizer from the ducks was part of the operation. Yeah. But I'm not sure.

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: I think that was part of the analysis for him, though. That part of it was to bring in the ducks to hit the required agricultural practices threshold to prohibit the municipality from regulating cannabis. I think that was part of the strategy. And ultimately, think that that's how the court

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: landed too.

[Unidentified Committee Member B]: So I just, for clarity,

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: I mean, you already said this, but I didn't understand how this here, this building out of Trump's would alter statute for cannabis.

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: So there exists another statute for cannabis that refers to this. Let me see if I can refers

[Unidentified Committee Member B]: to that particular statute.

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: Refers to the statute that we're changing.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: Changing.

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: And let me just go back one more. And so that's how it would change. So now we're in title seven that regulates cannabis. That should be on the screen there. And a cultivator license on this chapter who initiates cultivation of cannabis outdoors on a personal land shall not be regulated by a municipal bylaw adopted under 24 DSA chapter 117 in the same manner that required agricultural practices are not regulated by municipal bylaw under the statute that we're amending right here. This is the statute that is being amended and that's before you on the table. Yes. Yes. Yeah. And so cannabis also has some setback requirements. And then there's another provision that also limits the growing of cannabis in a way that farming wouldn't be touched. Suffice to say is that once we amend or excuse me, once the committee amends this statute in this way, then cannabis would have a lot more exemptions from municipal bylaw regulation.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And this is specifically the growing food part?

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: And so this is It came up when we were looking into the growing of food. But I think it's actually up here in the 1A or the D1A because we're changing what the required agricultural practices, how we're using that language. And we're directing the supreme well, we're saying it's the intent that municipalities cannot regulate by law. Things are subject to the required agricultural practices rule. And then there's this other statute out there that kind of adopts that language. So we think that that cannabis will be brought in in that way.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Good catch. So does that everything that Yes, we ask you to

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: I got a plan here. If

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: we can squeeze in some time tomorrow somewhere, and if we can do it at a time that you're available, if that time could make these changes, then we'll have you come in and take a look. Might put it on the agenda just so that everybody knows as committees, bill markup and possible vote. If we aren't ready to vote, we won't vote. But if we are ready to vote, then we will vote. And I'm putting that out there partly so that anybody else who is paying attention and feels like that they have something important to contribute to this conversation and wants to do so should be in touch and letting us know. Jed Lipsky, Jr.

[Unidentified Committee Member B]: Thursday morning, I've got the stakeholder group thing, so you have more discussion on this on Thursday morning. Yeah. It's a

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: different actually, that's a different bill on Thursday morning. Okay. A technical housekeeping bill. Okay. Yeah. Alright. And that would be if you need to not be here for that, less you don't be missing any no voting. Alright. Thank you. So we're back at 09:30 tomorrow. And thank you, everybody.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: Yep.