Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Assembly passed a bill that directed the land what became the Land Review Board to study and make some recommendations on how to make the permitting process there for permitting processing process. What? The permitting process easier for wood product manufacturers. So they came back with, you'll recall, a list of about 10 recommendations, and two of them would have required legislative action. So that's what we have in this bill. This is the result of those recommendations. So again, this is the same language that we looked at last week, but now it's been put in our legislative bill format before it was just, like, in a word doc. So thank you to Council Ellen for doing that and for being here and walking us through this.

[Ellen Tietkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes. Ellen Tietkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel. So I'm here on draft request 20Six-seven87, your committee bill related to forestry under Act two fifty. Today's draft is draft 3.2. There is yellow highlighting to indicate the changes, but there are changes from the prior draft, not from what you saw with ANR and LERB's agreement. So very similar to what you've already heard about. So on page one, section one is amending 10 BSA 6,001, the definition section of act two fifty. Subdivision three a is the definition of development, but underneath that is subdivision C. And so you did hear about this from the Land Use Review Board yesterday. The new language on it is on page two. And so forestry, as referenced in subdivision D of this subdivision, does not include conversion of land for non exempt uses, such as for a commercial or industrial purpose constituting development as defined in this chapter.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So additional new language to statute.

[Ellen Tietkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes. And it was in the it was in a different form in the prior draft. This has been one of the pieces the lurb has been discussing how to phrase it, but it is sort of a, I would say, reclarification of what is existing law. So just being clear that forestry is exempt from Act two fifty, but that doesn't include things that are not exempt from Act two fifty.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I think we use the example of a buffer tree, a barrier, whatever that churn is. Yeah. Okay. Representative O'Brien?

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Ellen, or you might know, Dave, was this part of the sort of directive get to this point? Was this part of the Future Act 181 or was it a different standalone two fifty bill?

[Ellen Tietkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It was part of Act 181.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: It was, okay. Yeah,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: so we had we had I'd forgotten what was the most

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: of it was.

[Ellen Tietkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: We piled a lot of things to that point. Yes.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: It was, I think, the result of some pressure from our committee to We heard a lot of testimony, and that was what we built. Representative Lipsky.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Thank you, chairman. Thank you, Alan. I'm gonna try to ask a question with a drawing. Okay. And sorry. I don't have a big whiteboard, but this represents a parcel of land. This represents a excluded for commercial. Mhmm. It's this is forested. This represents a stream that runs through this is all forested, whether it's 50 acres, whatever. This is excluded and is subject to act two fifty, and in fact, has an act two fifty permit. In the process of harvesting, this is the only feasible l. I'm gonna call that a landing, which is near a stream And a temporary stream crossing, whether it's Skidder Bridges or temporary culvert, might allow the forest product, the logging, if permitted use or doesn't require permitting to be crossed into this act two fifty jurisdiction parcel as the

[Rep. Brigham (first name unknown) (Member)]: remove it from, would the act of using a landing on an act two fifty portion abutting portion trigger an act two fifty review to

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: put a log landing, which is not developed and and a temporary bridge, which is not developed. Would that trigger an amendment or an additional review?

[Ellen Tietkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So I will start by saying ACTU 50 I I followed right along, so I I you can have it. I know exactly what you're asking. And so act two fifty determinations are highly fact specific based on the attributes of the site. So I am not attempting to give anyone legal advice as in what I say next. I believe what you are. The example you're discussing is actually the language. It relates to the language in section two of this bill. On the last page, which says no permit or permit amendment. Is required for logging and forestry on a site that has already has Act two fifty jurisdiction as long as it doesn't conflict. So the language that I was just discussing and the language at the end of the bill are talking about the same situation, but sort of the inverses of each situation where this first, this first stuff in section one is about there not being any act two fifty permit. But as long as they're just doing forestry, is not. A becoming part of a commercial development that remains exempt. But in the opposite situation where there's already an existing permit, if logging and forestry activities are going to occur on that site, No permit amendment is needed unless it will violate any condition of that permit. And so likely what you're describing will not need a permanent amendment, but it's possible depending on that site. If that was part of the parking lot, you know, flow, if they'd have to be careful. And so I think the language in section two addresses what you're describing. Diagrams.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And so we haven't finished going through the bill, and we'll get to that language. But John, did

[Unidentified Committee Member]: you have a question?

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Yeah, just what you were describing there is that the so called reverse? We came up with LERB, which

[Rep. Brigham (first name unknown) (Member)]: is

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: funny because we've talked about Stony Brook, then there was this reverse Stony Brook. It sounds like I take what you just described there, like ten years ago, if there was this piece of land that didn't go through Stony Brook, had development, the rest of it had to come under Act two fifty permitting. Now with this bill, you wouldn't have to amend it because you're exempt if you wanted to log it, for example.

[Ellen Tietkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And so I think it's important to remember too in context of the report overall is that this exemption broadly has been in Act two fifty since it was enacted in 1970. And so, I do think that this reflects some of the practices they have used. Because these situations come up and the district commissions have looked them. And so I'm not sure that in every single case, this exemption was applied, but part of the impetus impetus for this bill is having it very clear in statute, all the tendrils of the exemption and how it applies. And so being very clear. And so I think in the past it has been applied this way. I'm not entirely certain it has been in each case, especially since Stony Brook needs to be requested. And so this is just, again, being very clear about all that in addition to the guidance that they've issued.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: All right, why don't we go back to I think we had gone through the first paragraph on page two.

[Ellen Tietkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yep, and so on page two, subdivision F hasn't changed yet. It still is related on this topic. The only thing that has changed is the specific reference to the Department of Forest Parks and Recs document at the end. So so when development is proposed to occur on a parcel or tract of land that is devoted to logging or forestry, Only those portions of the parcel or tract that support the development shall be subject to regulation under this chapter. Permits issued under this chapter shall not impose conditions on other portions of the parcel or tract of land that do not support the development or necessary mitigation areas and that restrict or conflict with the acceptable management practices for maintaining water quality on logging jobs in Vermont.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And so italicized language.

[Ellen Tietkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That's the proper title of the the document issued by the department. So, yeah, we the editors changed it to that because that is the official title, so that's indicating the official name of that document.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. Okay. Representative Bartholomew. Can you remind me if we define development somewhere?

[Ellen Tietkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes. So the definition of development under act two fifty is six thousand and one three a, and those are the jurisdictional triggers for act two fifty. And so there are 12 of them.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: So the so called AMPs are not actually in statute, but there's a reference then to ANR rules, and that's where you would find their definition under this publication.

[Ellen Tietkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: What definition?

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: What an AMP is.

[Ellen Tietkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Oh, yes.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: All right. Yep. Okay.

[Ellen Tietkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So most of that sub paragraph F hasn't changed just having the official reference.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay. And this is the meat of recommendation nine. Mean it's part of filling recommendation nine. Yes. Okay.

[Ellen Tietkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Subdivision 44 at the bottom of page two hasn't changed at all and this is striking pulp and log and pulp concentration yards from the definition of wood product manufacturers restoring it to its exempt status.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Exempt from Act two fifty log and pulp concentration. Yes.

[Ellen Tietkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And then finally on page three is section two, and I've already mentioned it, but there's a small change based on the negotiations with ANR and the board. So section two is amending 10 BSA 6,081, the exemption section of Act two fifty. So no permit or permit amendment is required for logging and forestry below the elevation of 2,500 feet that will not conflict with or violate any per any condition of a permit issued pursuant to this chapter. Permit shall include a statement that logging and forestry activities consistent with this subsection and below the elevation of 2,500 feet are exempt from jurisdiction.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Representative Bartholomew.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: That first sentence under EE, it almost sounds like there's a double negative in there. I guess that it isn't, but it's a hard sentence to interpret for me. When you mentioned it earlier, instead of saying not conflict, you said, you were using the word unless. Would the sentence be more clear? Because it's hard to tell what this means. No permit that will not. That's See what I mean about a double negative? It's not really, but it feels like once.

[Ellen Tietkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So I would say overall that section one and section two are a bit of belts and suspenders for the existing exemption that already exists. And so, In 6081, there is nearly identical language in here about farming. So it's being, this language is being added for forestry. This, provision, I think is, has already been implied in statute. So logging and forestry activities are exempt from act two fifty. They do not require a permit or permit amendment if they do not conflict or violate any permit conditions. I guess if you wanted to change it to unless.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: I'm just wondering if it would make it more clear, unless it conflicts with or violates any condition, something like that. But maybe it's not a big deal. I just read this sentence four times before I could figure it out what I was saying.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Did you say, Ellen, that this language mirrors the existing language for agriculture? Yes. So it was written back in whenever. I don't know when it was originally spelled out for agriculture, but

[Ellen Tietkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Well, and I think perhaps, I guess I could check. It it may no longer match exactly because of the negotiations with ANR, but it it was intended to match what already what the protections already in place for farming.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: To a certain extent, the intended reader of this is the local district commission. So who would be interpreting this and would be looking at this and saying, what does this really mean? It's going to be people dealing with active 50. Yes. Landowners, I suppose. Yeah.

[Ellen Tietkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: You do want laws to be clear enough to be understood by the general public. District coordinators are the ones who usually do initial jurisdictional assessments. So if you think it would need to be more clear.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: No, I'm feeling we've got, as I said a couple hours ago, we have nine bills that we're trying to push out. This is the easy one. Got agreement from the two parties that actually care the most. So I'm not saying we can't wordsmith, but any wordsmithing we do, it goes back to the drawing board and with three days left, it might not come back. I like it. We're not voting on this now, by So the there will be time to discuss it, but representative Brigham.

[Rep. Brigham (first name unknown) (Member)]: What usually happens is the coordinator will contact the commissioners and say, What do you think about this? Then we decided.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Forgot we have an insider here now, to speak to us about the process, yeah. Beware, rehatched, no.

[Rep. Brigham (first name unknown) (Member)]: No one had to do it.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: But while we have Ellen in another three or four minutes on this bill, we can still dig in if we've got questions about what would this mean, what would happen here, What are the implications if there are any more questions?

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: I'm still on this whole Stony Brook thing. Originally we heard that you don't have to request it in agriculture. So right, if you had an agricultural piece parcel and you did development, it would automatically, I guess, be offered to you, or you could take the Stony Brook option, and it wasn't true with forestry blocks. Is there language in there then that puts those on equal footing counts?

[Ellen Tietkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes, on page two, subdivision F. So currently you don't see it there, but in statute subdivision E is the paragraph on farming. That is the statutory codification of that provision for farms.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Now this mirrors that language

[Ellen Tietkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes.

[Rep. Brigham (first name unknown) (Member)]: For forestry. Okay, great. Thanks.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Any other questions, Jamal? Go ahead, Representative Brigham. You know what's scary?

[Rep. Brigham (first name unknown) (Member)]: I was just looking at the title of this book. We got one thirty years ago. It was like this thick, and it's grown to this. What do you water now?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: What is it that you've got

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: there? This

[Ellen Tietkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: is the land use laws of Vermont. It's my my field guide that I carry around. I have to re tab it every year. Yes. I reread Act two fifty of 1970 a couple weeks ago, and it was 14 pages. Mhmm. And it is now almost 250 pages.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Two

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: fifty pages, 50. Yeah. All right, so thank you, Alan. I had at one point thought that we would ask the committee to vote on this today. We're not gonna do that because the thing right, we have two people who are not here. I do wanna just maybe just ask whether anybody has any concerns at this point, sort of a straw poll. The bill is getting a flyby in house environment tomorrow, I think. Then if they have any feedback, we'll hear that. But

[Rep. Brigham (first name unknown) (Member)]: don't know. Okay.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: That's great.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Jed's good, I'm good, I understand it. Makes a lot of sense to me, and Jed's math really helped.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Yeah. You could illustrate the the next story. Well,

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: that's not an original reverend Brad. So

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: John, John is okay with with this, at least at the moment. Nobody's helped anything, but do let me know if you have any concerns then. We are ahead of schedule and we probably should take advantage of that and pull up the other bill that Ellen is here to share with us. That is Doctor twenty 6072. So it's not a bill yet, right? It's a drafting request? Yep. Mhmm.

[Ellen Tietkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Bill on municipal regulation of agriculture. Today's draft is draft 5.1.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay. Everybody see that or have access to it who wants to?

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Just pause for a moment. I think why we have a doc for this month.

[Ellen Tietkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And Bradley is here too because we have been a team on this. Yes. And so he has a lot more of the context that you all have than I do.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I think when you visit IT, Jack, you can tell them that it's timing out more quickly and they can adjust that so that it doesn't shut down.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Oh, okay. That'd be nice. And every girl who's here. All day. I would

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: It's a it's a young guy. And Alan's here. A known bug.

[Rep. Brigham (first name unknown) (Member)]: And now if I don't catch it, it won't happen, right?

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: I can think of what title.

[Rep. Brigham (first name unknown) (Member)]: Title time, okay.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So we'll shift gears again. Patricia just want to double check that we don't have anybody in the Zoom room or anybody who's okay. So we're now going to have Ellen walk through the latest draft of the municipal regulation of agriculture drafting request. This bill also is having a flyby in house environment. It's also in a part of title or a part of statute that they deal with. All of this will look very familiar because it hasn't really changed much since the last time we spoke. When Ellen was here last week, we had some sections that she asked us to think about. We had some conversation. I gave her some feedback. We're not voting on this today, but it is an opportunity just to better understand from Ledge Council if we've got interpretation questions, what does this mean? I don't know that this is what the committee is going to ultimately want to vote out, but we needed to give something to House Environment Committee so that they had a chance to review it today. I think they may have already had Steve Collier come in today to actually give some testimony on this. Ellen, would you walk us through this latest draft?

[Ellen Tietkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Sure.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Just ask a title question then. So this is title 10, but title 24 comes into it.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Is all title 24, I think.

[Ellen Tietkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes, so in this book, this book is So title 10 is the conservation and development chapter. It covers a lot more than land use and title 24 is the municipal government title, and it includes not only the functions of municipal government, but also their authority, which includes municipal bylaws. So yes, most of my work as land use occurs in title 10, chapter 151 and title 24, chapter 117. By

[Unidentified Committee Member]: the way, that's a you're not allowed to have fun book.

[Ellen Tietkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Wow. This is Ellen's I am so much fun. I don't know what you're talking about. This is

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Ellen's passion. Yes. Be careful.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Hey, I'm glad she's up to speed on it.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Alright. So everybody's got this in front of them. Why don't we go ahead?

[Ellen Tietkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Oh, yes. This committee bill draft request 26Dash772. Today's draft is draft 5.1. The changes from the prior draft are highlighted in yellow and there's only a couple of them. It's largely the same as the prior draft. So section one is still the findings and intent section and that language has not changed. Section two starts, with the statutory amendments and so. Section two is amending 24 VSA 4413. This is the limitations on municipal bylaws. And so this portion of the language has not changed at all. A bylaw shall not regulate farming that meets the minimum threshold for the wraps, except as set forth in forty four point one two, which is in the next section. It also shall not regulate the construction of a farm structure. And so that has not changed. On page three, there is a small change. The prior version, it's highlighted on line 12, but this is to indicate that the prior version had a couple other definitions. But since you have been reconfiguring things, those definitions are no longer in this section, so they've been moved into the next section. And so section three, this is the amendment to 4,412, again, the required provisions of prohibitive effects of municipal zoning. And so you have created, starting at the very bottom of page three, but into page four, of provisions related to farming in tier one a and tier one b. And so there is only a couple of changes in this section. So on page four, you, it says currently that no bylaw shall have the effect of prohibiting farming or the construction of farm structures in a tier one area or tier one B area. However, these areas may be regulated as follows, only as follows. So they cannot regulate noise, smell, lighting, hours of operation. They may regulate ingress and egress of vehicular traffic and ensuring pedestrian safety, including regulating parking, signage, pavement markings, functional enclosure of livestock adjacent to roads. Oh, there should probably be an and there. Maybe an and there. But what was removed on line nine, was language you had previously that said it required regulations relating to trained personnel to manage vehicle movement on the premises. So that last clause has been struck. They may also regulate the siting and setback requirements for a new infrastructure and requiring that buildings open to the public may be developed in compliance with the fire and building safety code. In the eligibility section further down on that page, So for a farm to be eligible for the benefit of this subdivision, it shall be farming that meets the minimum threshold criteria for the wraps and is therefore required to comply with the required wraps rule and the construction of farm structures. However, a parcel where farming is taking place, farming has taken place prior to 07/01/2026, that has been conserved for agricultural purposes, or farm structures built prior to 07/01/2026 shall be exempt from municipal regulation. And so it's adding that further to just be very clear on line 19, where farming is taking place in addition to where it has taken place previously.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Charles, Representative Brian? Just quickly, what's the definition of conserved? Does that seem to be

[Ellen Tietkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It's not defined.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Does it mean, I mean, you could say it means like, oh, there's an easement on it that has to be agricultural or could it be in current use?

[Ellen Tietkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It is not specific here. I think either of those things would potentially count, but you can be more specific if you'd like to be.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Sure. For agriculture purposes.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Go ahead. Okay. Thank you, chair. Alan, so however, a parcel where farming is taking place, does this allow for change of farm use? In other words, you're in Downtown Hinesburg and that comes all tier one b country, and you have that farm right in the middle of all that development. And if someone wants to split that up into five parcels, and sell it to five different people that wanna run diverse agricultural operations. Would that allow is farming is farming is farming. Shouldn't matter if you're milking cows, goats, sheep, or growing carrots.

[Ellen Tietkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Right. I I that is the intent of this language. I did try to make sure it was broad. And so I don't see anything that it doesn't it doesn't require the same type of farming. It just says farming that is taking place or has taken place on this parcel is exempt. Mhmm. So I I don't see an issue with change of type. K.

[Rep. Brigham (first name unknown) (Member)]: Should we

[Unidentified Committee Member]: do we put in what our intent is anywhere on this?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yep. There's an intent section at the beginning. Yeah. And we if if there's some concern that that might be interpreted differently, we could spell it out. Mhmm. In fact, I think the idea of grandfathering Landon may have come along since we had Brad it was Bradley who had drafted the intent language. So that would be, I think, easy enough to add a sentence there if anybody's not comfortable with what we have here. But it does seem to me, my reading of it and hearing Ellen say, confirming that this would be interpreted to mean if you're farming on it today or on July 1, doesn't matter what you're farming. Okay. Representative

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: O'Brien. So this does mean that if you take a fallow piece of land in tier 1B, start farming there after the state that municipalities can regulate you.

[Ellen Tietkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So it does say farming has taken place prior to 07/01/2026. I apologize that I don't know if I know the full definition of fallow. So is it mean, are saying?

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Just say a piece of land, it could be prime ag land, but it hasn't been farmed for twenty five years, but it's a nice piece of soil. And bush up. And then a farmer starts there. I

[Ellen Tietkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: think under this language that if you can demonstrate that farming had taken place there prior to this, you could argue that it is exempt from this.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Like in 1830, like there was sheep there. I mean, I

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: just wondered how far back you'd go. Think

[Ellen Tietkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: that is a valid I

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: will say, and this is really my fault for not having had a chance to review this in the time since I was sent to me this morning. I think that we had intended to have that farming is taking place language replace the prior to language. Prior to? The thinking was, if it's happening now, if it's farming now, it qualifies. I think that was the last conversation we had.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: I'm just worried we're going to have two classes of farmers. We're going to have ones who are exempt and all new farmers who take prime egg soil, they're going to

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: be in a special category. We are going to, yeah, I mean, think that that is true. What And we're trying to do here is mitigate how different are those classes. So if you are not grandfathered, if you're using land that ultimately does not fall into this exception, then we're giving the municipality the ability to do something. And it's then a question of, well, what is that something? And those things are spelled out here, at least tentatively spelled out here.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah, I think it's spelled out where you can, if you have a two acre house lot in Tier 1A, you can still add chickens and sell the eggs and have a robust garden and sell your vegetables to your neighbors or give

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: them away donation or however you want

[Unidentified Committee Member]: to do it. I think

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: that says that here. But you can also farm, that you can't be prohibited from farming, but they can regulate the town.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: All the other things that are mentioned.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: The town can regulate

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: egress, ingress, So even new farms going forward can only be regulated by municipalities with what's described. Yes.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So in that sense, it is a different however you described it, John, two different categories. Right. Of farming. Yeah. Yeah.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: But quite restricted, though.

[Ellen Tietkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So am I making a change on it? I'd flag that. Okay.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. I think we need to Take out that firming has taken place. Just leave it partial where farming has taken place. So we'll we'll discuss that, but let's just flag it for now. Yeah.

[Ellen Tietkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay. The only other change on also on page five, there's two small changes. The definitions of food and poultry are in this section because you have subdivision 16 on page five, which is that no bylaw shall have the effect of prohibiting cultivation or other use of land for growing plants for food for personal use, donation or sale, including orchard crops, viticultural crops, and for maple sap, Or the raising, feeding, or management of poultry, excluding roosters, for personal use, donation, or sale. The only change here at the end of that sentence is that I had proposed, additional specificity here about of affirmatively describing what the municipality could do, but that has been struck. So now it is just that a bylaw can't have the effect of prohibiting cultivation. So there may be some ability for the municipality to regulate, but they can't overregulate to the point that it is unable to happen.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So a town could say you can't have a chicken coop within 10 feet of your neighbor's 50 feet of your neighbor's property. But if your lot is only 30 feet wide, that would functionally prohibit you from having chickens or having a coop anyway.

[Ellen Tietkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Potentially. How big are chicken a chicken coop wouldn't be able to fit?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Well, I'm thinking just about a setback if you had a

[Unidentified Committee Member]: 100 chickens.

[Ellen Tietkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Well, and so I do think the town's authority under this language would allow them to create some setbacks, but that wouldn't have the effect of prohibiting cultivation. It would just be on a smaller scale than perhaps full unlimited regulation.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. They have rules that make it impossible for you to

[Unidentified Committee Member]: break down chickens. Okay. This might be really going into the weeds, but, you know, it says for maple sap, after you harvest that maple sap, you need to boil that sap. So should it say for maple sugar in, which I think would include harvesting of sat and boiling of sat. And I could see someone get persnickety because somebody's got an arch going at 09:00 at night and a stack and steam and whatnot. That to me, it smells nice.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: That sweetening them up. That

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: enhances the neighbor's property value actually.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Give them a small little jug, 15 treats, oh, they're gonna make a little bit.

[Ellen Tietkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Almost every time I come in here, we discuss maple sap and I almost never have an answer ready. So the production of maple syrup is part of the definition of farming.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Okay.

[Ellen Tietkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And so I was going to phone a friend to see if this came up in the prior discussion, but I suspect it says maple sap and not syrup because that is one of the gray areas where whether or not it is farming is when you have sap before it becomes syrup. But I wanted to check.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: We have not discussed that.

[Ellen Tietkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Oh, okay.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: So, and piece of forest products throughout this agriculture

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Right. According to law. Well, I think the intent here is to say that a town can't prevent somebody from sugaring. I mean, I don't know whether towns can prevent people from growing trees, but this is growing plants for food. So we wanted to be sure that we were saying you can grow a maple tree for sap because that's a precursor anyway to food.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Jack? Just say maple.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Well, there's there's a lot of precedent here in statute. So I think that there's an answer, but maybe we can ask let let's flag this and if there's any we want again, we wanna be just sure that we're we're not giving a town That we're doing what we want to do here. I think that the league would They pointed out that there are no towns that prohibit chickens, for example. They might have restrictions, but nobody prohibits chickens. We certainly haven't heard any testimony suggesting that there are towns prohibiting planting maple trees or tapping them or even sugaring, but I don't know. So we'll flag it. We'll dig into this some more. Good question, sap, as you say every time, yeah? Every time you about. Yes. And it's confusing because it's both agriculture and forestry.

[Ellen Tietkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So those are the only changes in this draft. Section four is still that report. It hasn't changed at

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: all. Okay.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Where do APIs fall in this? Because that's another tricky

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: That's another one. Every time Ellen's in here, get re asked about it. No. Have I?

[Ellen Tietkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I don't know. I can look. I don't know off the top of my head.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: I'm just wondering, if a school wanted to have bees, for example, could the municipalities say no?

[Ellen Tietkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I don't know. I can look. Yeah, I don't know. Oh, wait, wait. The raising of bees is part of the definition of farming. I don't know what the wrap regulation of it looks like.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: I just want to make sure it's

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So that's farming.

[Ellen Tietkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It is part of the definition of farming.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay. We haven't, I'm just going to say not to open up ornate's nest here, but we haven't included anything about bees in this right to grow food section. So municipality presumably could regulate somebody's keeping of hives in a non farming way, I think, a small scale. They could do that today, presumably, and we haven't said that they wouldn't be able to do that going forward. Okay. While we have Ledge Council here, just any other questions of interpretation? All right, thank you very much.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Can I ask a question? Yes. All is Fred O'Brien, also legislative council. Can I have more clarification on the issue between sap and syrup? So

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: this is in the right to grow food section, the so called right to grow food section. Municipalities right now may have authority to tell people they can't grow trees. I don't know. They might have authority to say you can't build a outdoor little

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Arch. Not sugar house. What do you call it?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Well, I think the outdoors. Yeah. Yeah. Arch. An arch. Yep. In terms of building a little sugar house, it's not agriculture. This is just somebody who has a hobby. Because if it's agriculture, then it's I think it's covered.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: 16, so we're talking about.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We are talking about 16.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Yep.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So that is a real life scenario. There is a young couple in Middlesex that were putting up a sugar house on their property. They tapped, like, fifty, sixty trees, and they had to go before the zone in because the logical place to put it up is kind of in a setback area. And I said, well, your agriculture, you ought to be able to defeat that because there is no tier one b right now, but they were going through the zoning steps because they thought their zoning administrator thought it'd be no problem. Which is fine today because they have a zoning administrator that says it should be no problem. You get a different zoning administrator that the book is black and white and no gray, then it becomes an issue. I mean, there's some of them out there. And they weren't farming? No. No. No. They're homesteaders, though. Yeah. Again

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: if they had if they sold their syrup and made $2,000, then they would be farming, so they wouldn't have to go through that bourbon.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah. They're gonna have to really add some CBD to it or something. Not that kind of value out of it.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Can Can I ask you a more clarification question? So the goal of the committee is to protect both the growing of plants for the maple sap and processing that maple sap into syrup, is correct?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: How does the committee feel about that?

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: I'm sorry, because I had a counter information.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I see that, yeah. I think that that is the goal of the committee, so let's flag that. Okay. Representative Fragrance. So

[Rep. Brigham (first name unknown) (Member)]: you can't sell sap. That's like forest you've got.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yep. Yep.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Now in our town, there's only says

[Rep. Brigham (first name unknown) (Member)]: no zoning for ag structures. But there is 25 foot setbacks where you couldn't put the chicken coop or the garden shed has to be 25 feet from the line. So there may be what's gonna take precedence there? What's already in place on the town regs or it's like he said. Statute controls.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Statute controls. Yeah. So I don't know what whether that's a farm structure that you're talking about, but I think the setback wouldn't be They wouldn't be able to enforce that, would they, for an ag building?

[Ellen Tietkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Well, it would have to Well, it depends. And so it would be If it went through the agency of ag process to get it deemed a farm structure, then it would be exempt if you pass this.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: You would have to go through

[Ellen Tietkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: that process though. Yeah, I haven't deemed as a farm structure yet.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Seems like as soon as we get into the issue of boiling sap, it can get really complicated fast because if you're dealing with a municipality that has zoning and inspection requirements, a sugar house can be pretty sophisticated. They can be simple, but usually they're more than just a shed. So you could be dealing with setback. You could be dealing with electrical codes, water. Just could get really complicated really fast when we start talking about a sugar house.

[Ellen Tietkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Well, then it might fall under accessory on farm business at some point, too.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: But if you're giving it all away, then you wouldn't be a farmer. You'd be just tapping some trees, boiling the sap, and giving all giving it all away, and you're never gonna make $2,000. I don't know. It's

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: just $50 a gallon, 40 gallons.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: But if you're giving it away, you're not making anything. No.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So in other words, you're saying sugar is a sticky situation. I

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: guess that's what I'm saying.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Ellen, thank you very much for joining us.

[Rep. Brigham (first name unknown) (Member)]: Oh, thank you. It's I want seven beans a

[Unidentified Committee Member]: year ago. Given away, though it should be given away in equivalent of that $2,000 value. I know it doesn't say that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So No. It doesn't. Yeah.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: So we're gonna get we can do next year.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: It's another time. Plus, if

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: you're building a sugar house, you're probably with only 50 trees, you're not gonna make $2,000. You're gonna be losing money.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Yeah. Well Yeah. That's what we're doing now.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: It actually, no. Because even if you're over in Jackson, you have those phenomenal sweet trees, which could be they

[Rep. Brigham (first name unknown) (Member)]: could be sweet trees. You could get better than half a gallon trees on the front pond, that's over five.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We're gonna continue this conversation, but why don't we take a break? And when we come back, we have on the agenda to talk about Paracwat, and I just wanted to have an opportunity for people to say what they what they were were thinking. Now we're gonna try and