Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Of the language that's in the agency has proposed for municipal regulation. I think what would be really helpful is to hear if you're speaking on behalf of the farmer groups, where you are aligned with that. Our understanding is that you are largely aligned. Let me just say that upfront. Where you are aligned, and then if there's anything where you're not entirely aligned, that would be good to know too.

[Caroline Sherman Gordon (Legislative Director, Rural Vermont)]: Yeah. Thank you so much, dear chair Durfee. Thank you all for having me back to testify on the municipal exemption issue on behalf of our coalition. For the record, it's Caroline Sherman Gordon. I'm the legislative director of Rule Vermont, and this is good timing. We had a chance yesterday to have a coalition meeting to digest, the version of nine forty one that's moving through the Senate at this time. Obviously, we've been discussing three twenty three all session long as well, and the sections there related to the same issue. Again, our coalition includes Rule Vermont, but also NOFA Vermont, the Vermont Farm Bureau, the Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund and Farm to Plate, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts, AGRI Mark and CABET, the Land Access Opportunity Board, the Connecticut River Farmer Watershed Alliance and also the American Farmland Trust, who you also heard testimony from earlier this session. So really excited that, the Senate Committee on Agriculture has undertaken a strike all amendment with nine forty one as it passed, as they considered it in version 4.1. What we heard yesterday is that there was also a floor amendment proposed by senator Wiehofsky that was voted down, that we were very excited about that. So the senate voted in second reading in favor of the bill and also voted down this floor amendment, and we think that's all very favorable at this time because what the as you rightfully said, our coalition is mostly aligned with what with the framework the agency is proposing, in September as it's now moving, through the senate. What I wanna uplift most maybe is that they really, made a big step towards what our coalition had requested, and that is to back off from those increased eligibility criteria in the RAP rule, required agricultural practices rule. So the version that's now moving does not include those changes, so income threshold for farming is still $2,000 and you can still file Schedule F, with the IRS to be considered farming. That is the rule right now and this, bill does not change that. It would also adopt this framework the agency otherwise proposed with the RAP changes in statute and kind of clean up both the statute and the rule to some degree to make this legally a more sound approach, where basically you don't see these, pretty drastic changes in the rule only, but, have them based on a statutory enabling clause, so to speak, that one to one reflect the changes that will also occur in the rule, so we think that is more clean and transparent and welcome that. And so basically my testimony today, our coalition has just a handful of recommendations that kind of further lean into mix matching, these two different versions of the bill, how you see it in the Senate version you still have in committee, and the way you worked on it previously and what you will see coming to your committee now, from the senate assuming it will, pass third reading today.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Thank you, Caroline. Yeah. Triton, representative Nelson.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Caroline, good morning. Morning. What we need, I speaking for me, maybe the committee, but speaking for me, what I need help is define a small flock So

[Caroline Sherman Gordon (Legislative Director, Rural Vermont)]: Yeah. I that's that's part of our recommendations. If I if I may just proceed, then, one of our recommendations focuses on that.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: K. Perfect. Thank you.

[Caroline Sherman Gordon (Legislative Director, Rural Vermont)]: So we'll get to that in a minute. But I was thinking I would go through each recommendation, and, pause after each one to see if there's specific question to each aspect of what we're proposing. Those are all small tweaks, and we also have some, specific draft legislative language for each one that we can also look at. I'd be happy to share my screen in the end, if I may, to do so. So the first one is basically, to ensure that your legislative intent will be really clear and that, this is not this legislation is not gonna pave the way, for any local bylaw to have the effect on prohibiting raising of livestock. So Vermont identity includes a strong working landscape and homesteading culture. We all know this. These are increasingly important values as we face supply chain risk. The current global energy crisis is a really important example of that. This conflict between US, Israel and Iran, we all know is disrupting fertilizer supplies, affecting about 75% of the fertilizer used in the nation, and that will result in raising farming costs. So this is also expected to increase food prices for staples like beef, dairy, and produce. Right now, Vermont is importing 86% of its food consumed in the state, and the mandate of your committee's work is to focus on strengthening agriculture, food resilience, climate adaptation, protecting working lands. And so the house version of nine forty one, the way it was passed by the House, would have allowed municipalities to regulate livestock farming on parcels just under point seven five acres. And during revisions of that bill, there was language that stated that bylaws cannot prohibit farming, but that language was removed before the bill was voted and passed by the house. And now the senate version allows for local control over livestock farms of up to four acres in size, but that bill does not prevent towns from banning, straight up prohibiting certain types of livestock. It also does not clearly define, when state, rules will apply and when farm when farms are protected from zoning because they're subject to the RIP rule. The agency will be granted more discretion, to make a call on whether there is an exemption for farming or not, and the law itself will not, spell out how to exercise that that discretion specifically. So, basically, what we're saying here is, without clarification, small farms and homesteaders may lose protection and be pushed out of village centers. So while we support the agency of agriculture's framework, in h nine forty one as it currently moves through the senate, we we do strongly recommend adding this clause back in, and the clause is, quote unquote, no bylaw shall have the effect of prohibiting raising livestock, to add that clause in all the relevant framework in 40 24 forty four thirteen d one that you will see coming into your committee soon. So again, without this clause, small scale agriculture and local food production will be weakened, undermining the resilience goals of h nine forty one. And maybe just, about that, I I I will pass you. This is our first recommendation. There's questions.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So this is not about farming as defined, but about small scale agriculture? Small scale, personal.

[Caroline Sherman Gordon (Legislative Director, Rural Vermont)]: It it would be kind of, both because what the new framework says is basically when you're smaller than four acres, it really doesn't matter if you're subject to the RAP rule or not. If you're between one and four acres, that's the agency of agriculture who can decide. Should you be exempt from zoning? Should you just be subject to the RAP rule? Or do they not want to regulate a particular farm? It's not clear when how they make that call. It just says the agency has discretion. So it could very much be that the agency would decide, technically, you click some of the boxes that would make you a farm and exempt from zoning, but we find you should just be subject to zoning, and then that farm would not be protected from zoning and instead be fully subject to whatever zoning rules they're, subject to instead. And a little more complicated it is there if you're, just operating on less than one acre. Here, the new framework proposes that straight up, you would just not be exempt. You would be you would be also be subject to local zoning, and then it's yet more complicated when you operate farming on any scale. It could be larger than four four acres. When it's about raising swine specifically in a downtown or village center, this is the Orleans case where this new version has has is designed to have a better handle on it. That case, there's a pig farm larger than four acres, and so this why this new framework specifically has some allowance to regulate swine and swine waste in downtown village centers. Interestingly, in that regard, that bill says clearly there should be reasonable regulations of swine that should not have the effect of prohibiting raising swine. So in some in some respect, it's confusing because here, now raising swine in those very conflictual areas, it's more protected than if you raised any other type of livestock anywhere else when you're on smaller parcels. So basically, it's a matter of coherence to assume the the same level of protection to say even if you're on less than four acres and you're raising cattle, let's say you you may be subject to zoning. Hey, but those zones those zoning bylaws should just not prohibit you doing it at all. There should be a a a reasonable standard. Okay. Maybe if you really don't have any land base to do this well, you know, to to for it to be an animal welfare concern from the get go because you you have, like, such small square footage that you can't really put a cow on there and and raise a whale by any means. I think there's definitely an area where also prohibition does make sense, but in general, I think, without that being more nuanced and with the goal of not being prohibitive from the get go, there's good reason to say it should be more coherent and and no livestock raising should be straight up prohibited.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And are you sorry. Just to thank you, Caroline. Just to clarify, are you proposing this for one to four acres or zero to four acres?

[Caroline Sherman Gordon (Legislative Director, Rural Vermont)]: Basically, zero to four acres for both of those tiers that are other than there's three different tiers for local regulation. One is the swine waste where it's already cleared should not be prohibited, and the other two tiers are this less than one acre, and you're right between one and four acres, and we're suggesting to add this legal clause to both of those, subsections of the bill where some local regulation is allowed. We we say in both of those cases, those regulations should not be straight up prohibitive.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay. We we will We'll come back and we can debate that or not as time allows. But just any clarifying questions for Caroline before we move on to our next Yes, representative, bring them.

[Rep. Casey Toof (Member)]: So you're saying that if you're in the middle of of the city or town, and you got a three quarter or half acre lot in the house takes up most of it, there should be no ability to regulate whether they have a gator, a cow, or a chicken who's in the back in the whatever backyard is there?

[Caroline Sherman Gordon (Legislative Director, Rural Vermont)]: No. There should be, we're saying there should be definitely a chance to regulate, but the framework you will see that's used in September for raising livestock on such small parcels, we're talking mostly about other types of livestock. We get we're gonna get to the poultry part in a section. There's, for non commercial poultry, both bills as passed by the house and also this bill that you will now get back from the senate have a specific, special way to regulate noncommercial poultry, and we'll talk about that in a second. So this is about livestock right now that we're talking about, whether it's commercial or non commercial. Basically, both of those cases are affected by local zoning based on this new framework, because this new framework allows for zoning not so much based on the location of your parcel. So this would apply to whether you're in a downtown center or anywhere else in the state, just based on your parcel size being smaller than four acres or smaller than one acre. And here I say we do allow for, zoning. That's the how the framework is designed. What you will see if we look at it in more detail, the framework is articulated about having appropriate land base to do so. So it's not about the number of animals per se, it's about is the number of animals you raise on that particular parcel adequate or not. So every parcel is different. I think, Nofer von has spoken to that in previous testimony. Some parcels are very steep, very rocky, prone to erosion, very narrow, have neighbors so close by that any reasonable setback cannot be respected because of how narrow the parcel is, or the parcel is so steep and rocky that there's no grass livestock trampling would cause erosion, fairly soon. So, all of this is complex, and and and there's any regulation should, do its justice to account for that sort of complexity and not straight up ban certain types of livestock. This is happening right now. Very few municipalities do that, but the ones that do do it, for example, may not allow for cattle in general to be raised or pigs in general to be raised or ruminants, might just allow for poultry to be raised at all, if any livestock. And we think that's too vague, that's too ambiguous. That's not that's not what we need to foster our resilience and local self reliance goals. If we want to strengthen our supply chains, what we what the whole state needs is anyone to engage reasonably in growing some of their own food. As I said earlier, we're importing over 86% of what we consume right now. So anyone who has a significant land base and many of our lot sizes anywhere in the state are much larger and are sort of appropriate or have been historic farms and no local zoning should prevent re revitalizing the use agricultural use, whether it's commercial or noncommercial on any of those parcels, if it's reasonable.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Alright. Why don't why don't we have you continue then, Caroline?

[Caroline Sherman Gordon (Legislative Director, Rural Vermont)]: Awesome. Yeah. So the next, recommendation would be to reinsert a study committee on local regulations of small livestock farms and homesteaders. So, what we're talking about, small livestock farming in dense areas, as as you mentioned, representative, that has really been the key challenge in this process to to get a handle on that. And, prior to this legislation, act one eighty one intended really to protect open land by the with inserting this vision that we could concentrate development in the state. However, that law is now functioning primarily as the development tool as the law itself lacks any strong farmland protection, and as its administrators also lack any agricultural expertise specifically. So you heard testimony from the American Farmland Trust earlier this session, showing based on their data that Vermont is losing farmland faster than expected, over 10% faster than their, worst case sprawl scenario, and over 62% faster than their, business as usual scenario. And these figures are due mainly, due to rural residential sprawl, so development outside of downtown village centers. And, no recent law, including Act 181 has done anything to effectively address this issue. So what there's concern in our coalition and outside of our coalition that towns may interpret this act one eighty one law as a justification to move agriculture out of village centers, because farmland is right there, often targeted for housing development. So it's really critical that we, we all see this legislation that you're considering right now, clearly as an effort to protect the right to grow food and to ensure that homesteading is not undermined, by development pressures. So we urge you to clearly state your legislative intent in that regard that no local rules should prevent people from reasonably using their land to grow food for themselves and their communities. And, we recognize, obviously, this bill is also seeking to balance a degree of local regulation, especially in those densely populated areas with food production rights. And we think that's why a study committee is really needed to a, keep collaborating with the League of City and Towns. They've been interested and keep working with us towards developing what could become a statewide standard also for small livestock producers, to really make sure we we, keep working on regulations that will not limit food production, but but encourage doing it well. And then, also we realized, and the league also agreed to that, you know, zoning can do its part to a, protect farmland from development and enhance local self reliance by setting incentives for people to grow food. So the study committee could also do basically, think about regulations, local regulations, zoning bylaws, land use regulations on the local level, how those could be better designed to actually, encourage all this and and protect farmland, where there's this huge void right now. And then lastly, as we said, the agency will have this new discretion to determine whether the rules should be applying or study committee could also, draft guidelines for the agency, or with the agency's input, obviously, on when how will that new discretion will be exercised. So there's lots to study, and and we realize this session we're running out of time to get to that nitty gritty amount of detail here collaboratively, so we'll just need more time to to basically keep filling out that new framework we're we're considering here right now. And I'll pause there. There's questions.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Thanks. So did include language in nine forty one to set up a study committee or or allow the conversations to continue in a formal way. Is that language that we had included in nine forty one acceptable?

[Caroline Sherman Gordon (Legislative Director, Rural Vermont)]: So right now, the bill that you will receive, they took the study committee out. So we would have to put it back in. There was a study committed as you did come, your committee did include a study committee when you when the house passed the bill. So basically, our recommendation is to put it back in, and then we have a couple, suggestions to the language of the study committee that I that I submitted in my written testimony. If we have time in the end, we can look at that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay. We I know that we've, in in another context, had a conversation about how state study committees can be useful. I know that this particular topic was discussed without formal study committee over the summer and fall. Just noting that. Alright. Why don't we keep going then? I don't see any other hands.

[Caroline Sherman Gordon (Legislative Director, Rural Vermont)]: Thank you. Yeah. The third projection recommendation is now about the poultry protection. Representative Nelson, this now goes to your question about how to define small backyard flock of poultry. So again, for just for context, this bill for the very first time in in law would establish a legal right to grow food, including plants and poultry, protecting small scale homesteading from zoning restrictions that is novice, that was not the status of protections prior to neither this law nor this Supreme Court decision that kind of triggered all this. So what we recommend is adding rabbits to the protections, because rabbits can be raised on small parcels, are widely accepted, and do not, typically cause any conflicts. Many families do rely on them for food or as a step toward farming. There's no clear reason to exclude rabbits from the same protections as poultry. And so we're ensuring, when it comes to the language, you know, the language you will get back is different from how it passed the House. You're right, representative Nelson has this very vague language on a small backyard poultry flock would be protected. So this the way the language is currently written, it will its effect would be, possibly causing lawsuits, because it's so vague. It's not clear if existing ordinances will meet that standard or not, so it could be challenged in the courts very easily. And then it's so little defined that it probably wouldn't hold up in court the way it's currently written, the sense that it would actually grant any protections to anyone. So it's basically nonsensical the way it's written right now. So what clearly recommend, and we know the League of City and Towns has we've been in communication with them about how to do this, because they also don't want this to lead to more lawsuits and they do want to protect poultry, and I don't think they're much opposed to adding rabbits. But what what the the question is now how to do this? And so we've thought about this, a lot, and what we recommend is, making sure through legislation that you will not allow for any limits on animal numbers, to be ambiguous, that what they should be are, they should be clear, and they need to be also based on the, available land, not just on arbitrary caps. And so that would be a consistent framework that we apply, whether it's to livestock on any parcel size, all the way down to the smallest homesteader, that there has to be a relationship between how many animals you raise on any reasonable property size for that purpose. That's that's that's what's reasonable, and and arbitrary caps, never are. So, we want to really make sure that it's after this legislation passed that it's not okay anymore, for any town to impose vague restrictions, such as any fixed limits on hen numbers without linking them clearly to land capacity. The Senate just rejected such vague limits. There was this floor amendment by Senator Vaihovsky that proposed, let's just cap it at six hands. That floor amendment said no one should raise any more than six hands. Senate rejected it. So similar restriction, very similar, provision, is currently being challenged in a court in Maine, where a six chicken limit is being argued to violate the state's right to food that's part of their constitution, and and so we we we wanna not have similar lawsuits here. So what we the language we're proposing, what it would accomplish is to set clear, well defined rules that will actually strengthen Vermont's policy and protections and reduce legal risks. So we hope we can look through that language I have in the attachment here to our testimony and and and explain to you what we were thinking there. We also picked up some of the work your committee did earlier, where you in one one iteration of the versions of the bill, you had a provision in there that allows towns to adopt fewer restrictions, recognizing that most towns actually don't have any restrictions, and to make sure that also this legislation is not gonna trigger over regulating, poultry or rabbits, when so many towns never took interest in regulating once ever any of this through zoning. So, yeah, I think it's definitely possible, and then this can also be part of the study committee to make sure those frameworks are all coherent and and and administratable.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Representative Nelson?

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Caroline, I I think we need to tread lightly on this so we don't create a war between zoning administrators and in the agency of agriculture in rural Vermont and and and this committee. And I think we need this I I really think we need to set a limit of, you know, it is it 20 chickens? Is it, you know, and of course, when you're talking poll poultry, it's all different sizes, birds. You know, turkeys are much bigger than a chicken. And first, God forbid, you get a Tom Turkey. He wants a third goblin when it's 10 old. You know, and I teased the committee that we should go by poundage of what a mature bird weighs, 100 pounds, and that'd be roughly 25 Rhode Island reds and five turkeys, because of 20 pound average. But if if we could come up with a number that, you know, it it, you know, the towns can't regulate to less than 10 or 20 and put a less than. And then if towns wanna let you have 50 pens, they can let you. But you we're talking about Windham and Burlington and and Barry, and I googled up densities yesterday because I was just interested in what senator Bauschke was getting at. And, you know, when you got town city densities of 2,000 people per square mile, we had to take into consideration the people that choose to live in the city, and they choose to live in the city for what the city brings. And, I'm afraid that if we get a little bit overbearing, Alpha Gamma Row right on South Prospect Street right next to UBM emissions is one of the biggest lots in Burlington. It's well over two acres.

[Rep. Casey Toof (Member)]: Know Yeah.

[Caroline Sherman Gordon (Legislative Director, Rural Vermont)]: No. I get your I get your point. I get your point if I if I may respond. So for us, if you wanna include a range like the agency of agriculture recommended, first of all, local zoning of poultry is not what we we don't want our recommendation is not to not allow, you know, for any zoning. What we think would be reasonable is maybe to and you're right. The way that's part of the confusion here. The way the standard version is, of h nine forty one is written and out will move now to your your table again. You're right. The way it's written, it it's including it in this section forty four thirteen d one, where it's a full exemption of zoning. Our coalition is actually amendable to agree that it should be back in forty four twelve where there's some zoning is allowed, such as setbacks, well water protections, and and other zoning is allowed, but that the framework is no no bylaw shall have the effect of prohibiting raising rabbits or poultry, excluding roosters, to put back in that this is for personal use, donation, or sale, like you had it in the house. And we we're not so much in favor of the caps, but if if you ask us directly what is the range that our coalition would propose, if you if you really feel the urgent need to do a range, then the only logical range would be to have, for poultry, it'd be, up to 99 hens. On, because at a 100 hens, you're subject to the RIP rule, and for Turkey, something like, up to 50, and for rabbits up to 29, because at 30, you're a farm under the RIPs. So that basically, there's no gray zone between when the farming rule applies and, and between what you can do up, as a homesteader? Why why would there be any specific number of poultry, duck, turkey that you cannot ever raise. That is like, is there a specific number of animal law that the law never allows you to raise? That would be ridiculous. So either you're regulated through local zoning, if you have those numbers of animals, or you're regulated as farming. But what cannot ever be the case is that you cannot ever raise a specific number of animals. Totally disjointed from you having an appropriate parcel size or not. I'm sure in any city of Vermont, there is parcels of an acre or larger than an acre or, you know, whatever size it might be. But for every parcel size, there is something appropriate you can do with it. And, I don't think our coalition is opposed to raise to including those caps that that that define a clear line between here, you're subject to zoning. If you have less than 99 hens, if you have less than 29 rabbits, if you have less than 49, or if you have up to 50 turkeys, I think that it's not necessary from a legal standpoint because that's pretty also, I'm I'm, you know, I think I think the legal clause we're recommending establish the framework that that allows for zoning, but makes it clear, like, it should not be disjointed from what is appropriate for each case, and that can differ. Also, the DUCs and Essex with what we are suggesting can be regulated based on is that particular parcel what what is what is appropriate to do on that parcel? And not more, not less.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Caroline? Yeah. Just wanna pause for a second before we dig into the language. I think that's gonna be important. Representative Bartholomew had a hand up here too. I'm not sure if it was on the same issue or not.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. I I I actually like the idea of limiting the numbers based on adequate land, But I'm looking at the sentence I was looking at, you actually have on the screen now, I think. Municipalities may limit the number of poultry and rabbits anyone is raising only on the basis of a bylaw that requires the adequate land base to properly manage the nutrients and waste to the number of animals raised on the parcel. Sounds good, but what I'm wondering, how would a municipal municipality be able to do that?

[Caroline Sherman Gordon (Legislative Director, Rural Vermont)]: So that's why we need the study committee. The study committee would, work towards having a statewide model ordinance that sets that standard as an example. We need that standard not just for those poultry producers that are not commercial. We also need that same standard. What is the appropriate number of animals when you're a livestock farm of cattle on less than one acre? How many cattle can you raise on less than one acre? How many how many ruminants can you raise on up to four acres? How how you know? So we will need that standard. What is appropriate land base? What is a stocking density key to apply on different types of parcels based on the specific circumstances of that parcel, whether it's shape of the parcel, whether it's ecological preconditions of the parcel, we talked about slope, we talked about rocks, high bad rock, or stuff like that. So we realized none of that we have the time here in this session to get to that amount of detail, that's often how the law works, to set a general framework through these really more general legal clauses, and then to institute something like a study committee, where, different interests can be represented at the table, and to come up with something that's a model ordinance, that towns then can adopt, that you guys at the legislature could it would be reported back to you, and you as the legislature could codify it, or make it a mandate to towns that do want to zone this to adopt the model ordinance and don't go stricter than that, or, you know, make that a statewide standard. So we could continue this discussion based on the report of the study committee next year, And if your committee doesn't wanna act on it, towns could voluntarily adopt the model ordinance, as well as there could be guidance by the agency of agriculture for how they, enforce their discretion when when they when they will apply the, RIP rule and fully exempt a farming operation from zoning or not, if that makes sense.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yes. Thank you. Yeah.

[Rep. Casey Toof (Member)]: So when you're talking about regulating the numbers based on the land base, I mean, in these towns, fine town in Saint Albans City, there's regulations on poultry, but no roosters. I mean, these these birds are gonna rabbits are gonna have to be in cages. Right? I mean, it can't be free ranging all over the street. And I think that that's the concern of a number of municipalities is, you know, how do you come up with that number? If they're in case if they're caged, or are gonna have a net around your lawn and they're running free? Right. That's a lot of speculation there.

[Caroline Sherman Gordon (Legislative Director, Rural Vermont)]: Right. So this this framework would not be prohibitive to a town exercising through zoning requirements for, sufficient enclosure, adequate fencing, preventing animals running at large. None of that is prohibitive to having the opportunity to raise livestock or poultry. That would all be permissible under a framework like that, maybe even more so clearly permissible than it is now. You're right. There will have to be specific numbers also for cage systems. This is something I testified about in the House Environment Committee when there was the discussion also about animal numbers on less than one acres. In fact, if you read any animal husbandry book about raising poultry, I right now myself read a book about raising poultry, and, actually, it's the most common type of raising poultry in a cage system, if you especially if you're doing commercial farming. So interestingly, on less than one acre, if you do it commercially, you could raise over 14,000 hens in a cage system on less than one acre. So I testified to the House Environment Committee, you know, that if you don't make those farms smaller than one acre subject to our water quality regulations, that what we're basically creating here is a exemption for industrial farming of, large poultry farms on less than one acre with over 14,000 laying hens that are not subject to any rules. So, that would be a problem. For turkeys, it's 7,000 turkeys in a cage system on less than one acres. So, yes, that could all be defined, and and certainly, the local regulations could, could deem it inappropriate to raise that number of birds in a cage system on such small acre acreage?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Representative Lipsky. Yeah. Caroline,

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: I'm trying to wrap my head around one acre parcel, But we seem to be I'm assuming there is a house, possibly a garage, possibly a driveway, a well, a tree, maybe some landscape. So that alone takes up arguably 25% of one acre at 43,000 plus square feet. So are are those statistics of 14,000 k h n's in a household parcel or just a non improved?

[Caroline Sherman Gordon (Legislative Director, Rural Vermont)]: Non improved. So the language that was previously considered did not spell out what type of parcel we're talking about. When we're talking about parcels smaller than four acres, it could be any type it could be any type of parcel. And so this this this framework of adequate land base, that's why it's it's good not to hash this out with the legislature on this level, because you're right. Those are all important considerations to factor in a stocking density rule or standard. It's like, what is the actual land base available just to raise the livestock on the property? And I think what our concern is is not so much this ambiguous standard of, on less than one acre, you should be subject to zoning. Our concern is that most parcels in Vermont are larger than one acre. Most parcels in Vermont, even in downtown village centers, might be two acres, might be larger than two acres. And you're right, maybe 25% of the properties have infrastructure on them and don't define per se the land base available for raising livestock. But why in the world would anyone prohibit anyone to raise on their property that they own an appropriate number of livestock when the law itself doesn't even ask. How even large is the specific property, doesn't even ask how much land base is available for the number of animals you're raising. Just put a blanket ambiguous standard on less than one acres, towns can prohibit and tell you what to do or not to Just do a blanket, ambiguous standard. You should never raise more than six hens. The family in Maine has four or five children. They say with six hens, they cannot feed their family. With less than with six hands. So who who is to tell how many eggs your family should consume? Or or how much, surplus eggs you wanna sell to make it, make the chickens pay for themselves? If you have, if you have a property that that sustains them.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I go right. I

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: I agree that a study committee probably is necessary when you start thinking about all the thoughtfulness say that goes into the wraps. For example, this sub wrap homesteading farming. I just thought what happens with say a rental farm, somebody lives in a rental with no land, but they're friends with a neighbor who has some land. And would that include the same sort of provisions that are in the wraps that the person who's renting that land for agriculture, it's considered their farm essentially or their homestead. So all those kinds of details and even this discussion about hens and now just looking at a Jersey giant is 10 pounds and a Japanese bantam is one. So even with hens, there's an enormous range size and production.

[Caroline Sherman Gordon (Legislative Director, Rural Vermont)]: Yeah, I appreciate that thinking.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Caroline, I just wanna go back to what a town could do to, for example, contain chickens. You mentioned fencing. The language that you had up on the screen a moment ago

[Caroline Sherman Gordon (Legislative Director, Rural Vermont)]: Oh, yeah. I can put it back up.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yep. Talked about it would give municipalities to regulate only oh, wait. You've got it up. Only only on the basis of of land base to properly manage nutrients and waste. So how does a fence fit into that construct?

[Caroline Sherman Gordon (Legislative Director, Rural Vermont)]: Well, what this and maybe this would be a question for legal counsel if I'm interpreting this language we drafted ourselves correctly. What this clause is trying to get at, that if a bylaw is seeking to limit the number of poultry and animals, they can only do that on the basis of a law that at the very minimum is not exclusive. It doesn't say it shouldn't regulate anything else. But if you're talking about limiting the numbers, then they cannot do that just in an ambiguous way, but they can only do that on the basis of a requirement around what is the adequate land base. So this is a general clause just talking about if you want to limit animal numbers, you can do that, but it has to be jointed with what is the adequate land base. So this does not say outside of that, you can't do anything else in bylaw. That would be accomplished by putting this clause not in forty four thirteen d one, where it's about general exemption from zoning bylaws, but in forty four twelve, where it says you can do bylaws, it should just not have the effect of prohibiting. So this is basically saying sentence one, you can do bylaw, whatever you want, including the fence, but none of the bylaws should have the effect that you're actually prohibiting it. Then sentence two is saying, like, okay, if you wanna limit the number, you can only do that if there's a requirement that defines the land base. And then the third sentence is saying, hey, you can only you can also adopt the bylaw about rabbits and poultry. In general, that's less restrictive. So this is basically the Burlington case. The League of City and Towns is always bringing up Burlington that they have a very lax zoning by law for poultry, that they basically just say you have to have a coop. The chickens have to have safe enclosure, and they don't really say much about what the coop needs to look like. So this is basically saying it's fine. You can do that. You're not you're not you're not specifying the number of poultry you can have in Burlington. That's fine too. You can do that. You don't have to specify the numbers if you don't want to. Okay. And, obviously and and, obviously, requiring a chicken coop is also not prohibitive. Right? So that's basically the answer.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So alright. Good. So that's that's your intent. Setbacks could also fit into that framework?

[Caroline Sherman Gordon (Legislative Director, Rural Vermont)]: Yes. Yes. Of course of course, there's a little bit, tricky sometimes. We we've discussed it very vaguely. The most strict setbacks can, can be so lack so much ground truthing that if you consider all the very nitty gritty over excessive setbacks, in the end, there's nothing left to ever do anything on the property. So weaponize setbacks to a degree that it would in the end, no one can do anything on the property would also not be okay. That would be then falling into the sphere of functionally prohibiting the raising, feeding, or management of rabbits and poultry. But most commonly, if you do setbacks also in a reasonable way, it should not be an issue to have zoning setbacks under this clause.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I'm thinking of the the two acre lot in or save in an acre lot, the large lot unimproved or an improved lot that has a lot of open space. That's a built up environment, in an urban or residential environment, where the neighboring lots might be much smaller. And unlike a parcel out in a rural area in the countryside, your neighbor isn't as likely to be living right up on the edge of the common boundary. And in that instance, I think for reasonably for municipality being able to, you know, involve some setbacks makes some sense. Representative O'Brien.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Chair, I was just wondering how we worked out this with accessory on our business, same sort of thing like there potentially could be setbacks for business, but you couldn't do so. We couldn't weaponize it in such a way that you'd prohibit that with municipal zoning. So, somehow we threaded the needle there. Yeah, the

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: language there, and we'd have to look at it, but it talks about not prohibiting, so effectively not Similar in some ways. And I don't know whether there have been any, but we know there have been some high profile lawsuits around accessory on farm businesses, but I don't know if they've been set back for later. Yeah. Yeah. And

[Caroline Sherman Gordon (Legislative Director, Rural Vermont)]: and you're right. This is thank you so much, representative O'Brien. That's exactly what we've been thinking too. This kind of clause has worked with accessory on farm businesses. We wish there would be a coherence there too, that the intent of the legislature can be clear. We want people to raise poultry. It should be reasonable what they do based on the land they have available. We don't want towns just to prohibit because they can. And that there needs to be a more balanced middle ground on all of this, and and that and and and you're right. The accessory on farm business part of the statute in title 24 lends itself to copy that model here as well.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Representative Nelson, thank you. I I think we gotta be real careful threading the needle on this because I don't wanna I don't want us to do something that makes people in those built up areas, high density housing areas, downtowns. I don't wanna do something that makes them hate us. And, you know, I think you can be reasonable and put a number on chickens on poultry, and it wouldn't be a 100. It'd be it'd be way less. I think you could do something reasonable to say that town can't prohibit prohibit you from having two dozen. But I think if you start going to 99 and and start talking cattle, I I don't I'm not familiar with goats or sheep, but I'm familiar with bigger ruminants, including bison. And and you you if we overstep our bounds, there might be legislation coming in here next year that we don't like and may not be able to stop. And that's that's my concern. And and so I think we gotta thread a needle here and and be reasonable to our urban constituents, and I don't really have any set Derby line is that 900 and some people per square mile with all kinds of old barns still attached to houses and whatnot.

[Caroline Sherman Gordon (Legislative Director, Rural Vermont)]: If I may, one one response to that concern of the urban population. One law that most recently also passed into law a couple years ago is the environmental justice policy of Vermont, and that law specifically talks about populations needing to share equitable benefits and burdens when it comes to when it comes to, environmental benefits. And, how that framework is being interpreted when it comes to urban centers is actually quite the opposite, representative Nelson, that we actually, especially now at a time where we're planning to more densely develop our existing urban centers, that what we're really running into here is not the question of those people and populations and urban centers not wanting anything natural in their purview. Quite the opposite is true, is that we have to make sure that the way we're developing urban centers is that we're not creating environmental justice populations. And when would we be creating such populations? It's when we would strip everything that's agricultural out of those communities, or not also ensure that we're incentivizing bringing food and food cultivation practices into those urban centers. So quite the opposite is true, is what our coalition would argue, especially the Land Access and Opportunity Board is an expert on this issue, is we need to ensure our urban centres will be having also green parts in it, whether that is tree lines and on walkways, whether that is community gardens in walking distance, whether that is a space where anyone living in an apartment can grow their own vegetable garden or also raise their own chickens. I come from Berlin City. In Berlin City in the 70s, architects have made an effort to patchwork the entire city and many other cities in Berlin with, Schleevergartens, which is like, homestead sized garden lots where you can raise poultry and vegetables for your self sufficiency Those gardens are everywhere in Germany. In The United States, we have after after second world war victory gardens, where because of the supply chain disruptions of the war, people started raising food and masses anywhere they could. So if we wanna avoid, in in whether it's in response to climate change or other ongoing wars right now, people to be disadvantaged because they live urban, then we need to ensure rights like this are protected, especially in urban centers so that anyone in Vermont, whether you have the privilege of living on a two acre lot with a residential home or not, you are a tenant in an apartment, you have the same right you can provide to grow some of your own food, whether it's protein that's available to you year round because it's poultry, or whether it's a fiber based vegetable.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Caroline, just in the interest of making sure that we do have a bill that we can get through across the finish line. You've you've mentioned three changes, I think, here to I don't know if there are any others, but three generally three changes.

[Rep. Casey Toof (Member)]: Are

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: you confident that have you had have you had conversations with the other two parties, in particular, the agency of agriculture on these?

[Caroline Sherman Gordon (Legislative Director, Rural Vermont)]: Yeah. I mean, this last issue around noncommercial poultry and rabbits, the agency is really indifferent about. This is an area where they don't wanna have jurisdiction, so they also don't really wanna be lead authoring legislation on that subject matter. The leak of city and towns, very positive. We've discussed the language I've just shared with you. They have not endorsed or opposed this specific language, but they've been very positive in reassuring us that they do want to settle on this. They do want to bring this home, with this bill, a protection specifically for raising poultry. They keep reiterating no municipality in Vermont is prohibiting poultry. And they also said the way it's currently written as small backyard flock makes no sense.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. Good. Okay. Thank you.

[Caroline Sherman Gordon (Legislative Director, Rural Vermont)]: Other question. Well,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: one other question, representative O'Brien? Just just a quick inquiry,

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: wasn't there some language about mediation also in early versions of this. It seems like most of this is never gonna come up as far as disputes go. And it's the rare case like in Orleans where or as exemption where it seems like they're agricultural mediators and it seems we should take advantage of them somehow. Included, maybe the study committee could look into this too. But I think a lot of resolution could happen at that mediation level before lawsuits happen.

[Caroline Sherman Gordon (Legislative Director, Rural Vermont)]: That is an idea and maybe I'm sure it's a issue that brings its own degree of complexity because you're right. We have this free act mediation service. But if we would wanna expand their services to capture noncommercial farming activities, it might come with an appropriation or other support for them being able to do that. I think here, what what we think is the best way to avoid lawsuits is to have a clear, transparent, well defined, administrable statewide standard, the model ordinance could achieve that. Clear guidelines. The agency of agriculture is going by when they make their determinations could achieve that. So, yes, I think you're right. The study committee process could look also into that, and and fold some recommendations with that respect into their report. So, appreciate that thought. And the last two recommendations, I'll keep this really brief. The senate version of nine forty one includes a sentence about the right to grow plants not being applicable to growing cannabis. Our coalition knows cannabis cultivation is already regulated by state law, including limits on plant numbers for personal use. I think if you grow recreational cannabis, no one can grow more than two plants that are mature and four plants that are immature. There's, statewide law that defines that and there's enforcement of that, obviously possible. And so this language in September that basically would allow municipalities to circumvent state law and prohibit cannabis cultivation, We recommend removing this provision, so that this bill aligns with the existing state law and with the bill as passed by the House earlier. So we know this language could pass the House without that language in it, and we really urge you to do that again because regulating cannabis, as you all know, has been complicated enough. It's really a struggle right now, so we don't need to bring municipalities into that mix more. It's what we recommend. And then the last recommendation is to support $1,600,000 in funding for the Land Access and Opportunity Board. This is not with this bill, but the LAOB is part of our coalition, and they do really need sufficient funding to take on new responsibilities created by legislation this year. So we really kindly request that you, as individual representatives, support adding 1,600,000 in one time funds to their existing baseline funding. We think there's opportunity to, get that funding into s two seventy eight. That's the miscellaneous cannabis bill That would bring their total appropriation to $2,700,000, and that would really, based on what they told me yesterday, support them in, taking on new responsibilities. So possibly they would they should our language recommendation that's included in our written testimony suggests that it should be the LAOB. That's facilitating the stakeholder group, not the Agency of Agriculture, because the Agency of Agriculture has testified that they don't want to be facilitating the stakeholder group on small livestock farms, and that makes sense, because they don't want to have jurisdiction over them anymore, and this new framework that's coming over would accomplish that. So why would they be the one then facilitating a stakeholder group that then tries to figure out what should be the scope of local control of livestock farms? They can certainly be invited to be participating in that, and maybe they will, but why would they be poised to facilitate that process, whereas the Land Access and Opportunity Board really has a germane mandate to make sure any type regulations are equitable and don't disenfranchise migrant communities or historically marginalized populations. And urban populations would certainly be populations within urban communities would certainly fall within their scope of oversight, and so they will be better positioned to facilitate such a stakeholder group, but if they do that, then they would also need a budget to allow them to do that, and that's one thing they're tasked with possibly this year. They're also in conversation to working on act one eighty one and better community engagement on that, avenue. So so they they have shown up in community engagement processes in the past with phenomenal services, and we want them to do more of that. And so that kind of additional one time funding is what they say they need to do all this well, and possibly $2.78 would be the vehicle to to get that done. So we ask for your support. Thank you. I will close there. Thank you all so much for your time. I know we talked a long time. Thank you.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Before thank you, Caroline. Before we let you go, just I wanted to address the your fourth recommendation on the cannabis language. I think our intent and I can't speak to the impact of what the Senate language would mean or imply, but our intent was certainly to make sure that anything we did here didn't conflict with existing state law regarding cannabis. Either create create more opportunity or remove any current opportunity. We want it to be completely neutral on that. So we'll make sure that whatever the language is and I think what the language we had in our house version accomplished that, I think. And it sounds like you're that.

[Caroline Sherman Gordon (Legislative Director, Rural Vermont)]: Exactly.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: One other thing that hasn't come up in representative Burtt, who was had to step out of the back now, has suggested that we think about removing or prohibiting municipalities from charging residents a fee for having poultry. And we know that there are some instances where poultry is currently being regulated in a backyard basis where there is a fee. Would you have a position on that? And I I'm putting you on the spot because unless you heard the discussion earlier, you didn't know what we were thinking about it.

[Caroline Sherman Gordon (Legislative Director, Rural Vermont)]: Right. Now that's does come a little bit at a surprise. I can't say that we have a coalition position on this. I think the legal clause we're proposing is that no bylaw shall have the effect of prohibiting raising poultry or rabbits, that that clause could be a catch all to rule out fees that are so excessive that you wouldn't be able to afford doing it because there's an annual fee, let's say, so excessively high that it takes away any economic sense in starting the endeavor. So a fee that's unreasonably high would probably fail based on a legal clause like that. But if it's like an administrative sort of registration fee, so that a municipality can even know where there's what number of poultry in their community and there's some administrative cost to that, similarly to how you have to register any working dog or dog you keep in the neighborhood that is, know, what do I pay for all three dogs? I think, like, $17 a year or something. I wouldn't see why we would be opposed to offsetting administrative costs, especially in urban centers, where there might be in order to manage and apply, for example, such a stocking density standard that's going to be developed on a parcel by parcel, case by case basis. I could imagine that municipalities might choose for flocks to be registered in the town, and that there will be an administrative fee associated with that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay. Bridget? Yeah.

[Bridget (unidentified; likely committee member or staff)]: Yeah. Caroline, I just I just wanted to clarify. I I've heard you say a couple times in the testimony today about the right to grow food, and we actually passed a bill called the right to grow vegetables. But then when I heard your delineated numbered recommendations, I don't think the right to grow food was one of those, was it, or was it not? Because I when when you were going through the numbers, I didn't hear it.

[Caroline Sherman Gordon (Legislative Director, Rural Vermont)]: So thank you so much for that question. Yeah. When we talk about the right to grow food in this context, it's about creating these new legal protections for non commercial non commercial growing of plants, or rabbits, or poultry that have not previously been protected from zoning bylaws, because they never were like commercial farming. So this is why we talk about the right to grow food in that context, because here this bill would now protect for the first time in law these three things, growing plants, rabbits, or poultry, if you follow these recommendations. Obviously, the statute itself, it wouldn't say right to grow food, because that would not be specific enough. So the language that, for that reason, the language you saw would be, A, this specific legal clause around growing plants, and then the other specific legal clause around growing rabbits and poultry that we discussed. And it's different from the bill you passed that's about the right to grow vegetable gardens, because that's not about zoning bylaws, but it's also very important. It's about tenant tenant property owner relationships, and the ability to grow vegetables when you're a tenant. So I think it's great, and I think those legislative initiatives will go hand in hand, and we hope that they all succeed in passing into law. And really appreciate all your work you did on the right to grow vegetable gardens. Also just to wrap that up, what we really think is the exciting moment of this issue coming to you this year in the legislature, you know, Maine already foraged ahead and amended really their constitution to have this right to food in it. And the right to food, that framework is broader than the right to grow food. In the constitutional amendment that main did, the right to food encompasses both. The ability to access space to grow your own food, whether you own the land or not. We talked about that a little bit when it came to environmental justice populations. It also includes the right to be provided culturally appropriated food, whether you grow it yourself or you just need to have opportunity to access food to to be eating. So that that sovereignty constitution, that Maine did, is is broader, but obviously, doing a constitutional amendment is very, very complicated, and Maine worked on this for many years. I think in Vermont, the legislative process to amend our constitution would mean we'd have to pass it into law twice, in two different biennials. Then, every citizen of Vermont can vote on it directly during a general election, and then maybe it becomes part of the constitution. So it's a it's a reiterative process that's utmost complicated. And isn't it fascinating that you all in this legislative session could affect statutory changes, like the ones we're discussing today, and basically get Vermont to a very similar place, like the place Maine is in right now, by having done this constitutional amendment, when it comes to the right to grow food. So I think that's a huge opportunity you all have right now, and that these statutory changes we're discussing here today chart the way towards that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Alright. I think that's a good place to stop, and thank you for joining us, Caroline.

[Caroline Sherman Gordon (Legislative Director, Rural Vermont)]: Thank you all so much for having me.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We'll be continuing the discussions.

[Caroline Sherman Gordon (Legislative Director, Rural Vermont)]: Yes. And please feel free to invite any other of our coalition partners in to give you give you more of their their nuance and spiel. But but we did have a meeting yesterday, and the recommendations I shared with you today are endorsed by our coalition. Thank you so much for having me.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: All right, we'll be in touch, thank you.

[Caroline Sherman Gordon (Legislative Director, Rural Vermont)]: Bye.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Let's committee, we'll take a break, and we'll start up again at eleven.