Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Alright. Welcome back to the House Environment Committee. We are changing topics to, an act relating to municipal regulation of agriculture, a committee build from the ag committee, with our legislative council looking at the latest draft.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Welcome, Ellen. Ellen Chekowski, office of legislative council. So, draft request number 26Dash772 is the House Agriculture's Committee bill on municipal regulation of agriculture, so zoning related to farming. Since I was last last year, I believe there's only been a couple small changes which are highlighted in yellow.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Can you just pause for one second? That's so interesting because you said zoning is related to agriculture. And yesterday during testimony, it was just stood out to me that certain things are regulated by ordinance. Mhmm. But zoning zoning is an ordinance, and they were sort of drawing a distinction between the two. Is there a distinction?

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Yes.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It's a zoning ordinance.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's not a zoning ordinance. It's a zoning bylaw. Okay.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I feel like I've seen headings on towns that say zoning ordinance. But

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So ordinance authority for municipalities is separate from their bylaw authority. I do think it it generally falls under municipalities in Vermont are governed by the fact that we are a Dillon's rule state, which means that municipalities only have the authority that the legislature directly grants to them. And so there are a number of statutes in title 24 establishing what authority municipalities actually have. They have ordinance authority that comes from their general authority related to, the ability to, protect health, safety, and welfare. Tucker in our office works on municipal ordinances generally, and I work on bylaws because there's a separate chapter establishing what municipalities can do through zoning bylaws. I I think I have described previously that zoning bylaws are specific to the way that municipalities can regulate what happens on the land. And I think more generally, ordinances dictate behavior dictate how municipalities can regulate behavior in the town. And so ordinances can cover a lot more things other than land use. I haven't necessarily researched the specific nuance differences, and if they they are sort of they come from the I think of them as separate things. I can can look into if they are truly separate or just nuanced different types of things. But

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I guess I'm asking because I'm wondering if we've always talked about the municipal regulation happening through zoning of act or not of agriculture farming happening through zoning, and then they the draft we looked at maybe yesterday had them separated. And some of the ordinance type of things, would they apply to all activities regardless of whether it was farming, or is the conversation yeah. Or yeah. Could an ordinance regulate agriculture? I

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: don't know off the top of my head. Section twenty seven ninety three in title 24 27 there is a there is a there is a chapter and a specific statute that establishes what municipalities are allowed to do via ordinance, and it is not in the same chapter as zoning. And so I have some familiarity with it, but not off the top of my head as much. What I don't what what draft were you looking at yesterday?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Is it of this? Yes. I mean, it just was, the way that the league, I think, presented the information, and they had a suggested change, they said, Well, these things are regulated by ordinance, so we are taking them out of our suggestion. And it just struck me like, Oh, well then, wait a minute. And that they were seemingly overlapping Venn diagrams of things that could be regulated by zoning or ordinance.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Such as noise. Noise.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I I can look. I don't know off the top of my head, but because this is a Dillon rule state, there has to be very specific authority divided in statute. And so there is an ordinance statute where that it is listed, and there's, like, 23 or 24 items on the list of which municipalities are allowed to adopt ordinances on. And then there's also a chapter that establishes what municipalities are allowed to adopt bylaws on.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. Okay. Thanks. I'm curious about this. Do you have a comment on this, Steve Collier?

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: Sure. Steve Collier from the agency of agriculture. I think I think you're hitting on the right issues. My understanding is that the the preclusion for for farming has always been tied to zoning, not to ordinances. I agree with Ellen that ordinances are more about the police power that towns have to regulate behavior, things like so disorderly conduct, as an example, might be a statute. I think if someone was doing that outside of the farm, that would be absolutely regulable by the by the municipality. I do think, though, there's been a little there has been a gray area in exactly how that extends specifically for noise. I don't think towns have regulated farming for noise, and we don't want them to. However, doing something well outside the scope of normal normal farming activities, that could be different. But I I do think it's a gray area if you're talking about a noise regulation applying generally to an area. I don't think they're ever designed to apply to farms, but we've had a couple of examples with sound cannons as an example, which can be used to protect crops and say in August, you have a sound cannon where you're scaring the birds off your blueberries or off your corn, and generally speaking, everyone is fine with that, but occasionally, it's too close to a neighbor. We had somebody who moved up from New Jersey and was working in a house, and he was near a vineyard. He was not very happy about the sound cannon cannon. And so I think towns have some choices to make there, and it's it's been, frankly, a little bit brave. But I think what is clear is that zoning bylaws, as it's been as the law has been developed, do not apply to towns. The applicability of ordinances is a little it's less clear to me, and it has been less clear to me. I don't think anything about this bill, though, changes that from what it was before. I think it would have to be a broader to specifically exclude ordinances within the police power that Helen was referencing. I think the bill would have to be this stuff.

[Josh Hanford (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: I don't think this changes the status quo.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: No. I don't think so either. I just think it's important for us to understand that.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank you. And lighting would be on that list, I believe, as well. The lighting can go sound and lighting could be under zoning as well.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay. Alright. Anyway, let's dig in here to the representative Austin.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Yeah. I'm just I'm just a

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: little confused just being on the Colchester Planning Commission. Understanding is the Supreme Court basically said municipalities cannot regulate farming. That's how I interpret it. But it seems like I'm saying the opposite. You're saying the opposite.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The Supreme Court said towns can regulate.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Oh, I'm sorry, can regulate. Yes. Yes. Yes. But it sounds like there are certain areas that they can regulate. Municipalities can regulate certain areas of farming. So that's where I'm a little confused because it seems like that's what we're talking about in terms of noise or smells or

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Maybe you're conflating the fact that we're looking at a bill that is trying to clarify that so we could dig into it.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Until yes. Until last year, understanding was that towns could not regulate farming through their zoning. The Supreme Court changed that interpretation of that and said that towns can towns cannot regulate the agricultural practices on farms. This bill seeks to restore the the municipal this this bill seeks to go back to how it was before the Supreme Court made that decision where towns largely cannot regulate through their zoning with a couple caveats in this bill. There is a different proposal in the senate to do that, and so the legislature is looking at to what extent should municipalities have authority to regulate farming through their zoning. So, section one is an intent section and that hasn't changed. It's acknowledging the Supreme Court's decision and that they means and that the general assembly is seeking to clarify the authority for municipalities. Section two is the actual amendments to the statute. So, the first amendment here, it hasn't changed from the prior version. It still says that a bylaw under this chapter shall not regulate farming that meets the minimum threshold criteria for the required agricultural practices rule and is therefore required to comply with the required agricultural practices rule. Except as set forth in 04/2012. So and then sub subsection b is saying the construction of a farm structure that is authorized under the RAP rule except as under 4412. So, with the except with leaving out the 4412, which we'll get to in a minute, this language is seeking to put back what was previously understood as the municipality's lack of authority. They couldn't use a bylaw to regulate farming that is governed by the RAP rule, including the construction of farm structures that are governed by the RAP rule. The House Agriculture Committee is adding this caveat in 4412, which is in the next section, which I had walked you through previously, which has only changed slightly. So they're putting in a caveat in 4412 related to Tier 1A and Tier 1B areas. But otherwise, Section two is largely seeking to restore what happened before the Supreme Court decision.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Can you talk a little bit about Tier 1B? Sure. A couple of us noticed perhaps some or have concerns about a perverse incentive for Tier 1B being created. I'm I have some yellow flags around using tiers right now anyway because they don't exist yet, and we're just putting them into use. And so tying too many things to something that's so new is a bit of a concern to me. With that being said, I understand what's trying to be done here, and tier one b are much less clearly defined and understood at this time and more likely, I think, to run into adjacency or even current agricultural uses that are happening in those areas. So I think an understanding of the limits around tier one b, the housing and acreage limits, would be very helpful for the committee to have top of mind, and then curious about your thoughts about that.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sure. So, do you want me to review the language in the draft first? So, the only small change on page three was moving definitions out of section two into section three. And so, section three is establishing this exception to the exception for 4412, farming in tier 1A and tier 1B. So on page four, no bylaw shall have the effect of prohibiting farming or the construction of farm structures in tier one a or tier one b area. However, they may farming in those areas may only be regulated as follows. A municipality shall not regulate noise, smell, lighting, and hours of operation, but a municipality may regulate ingress and egress of vehicular traffic and ensuring pedestrian safety, including regulating parking, signage, pavement marking, functional enclosure of livestocks of livestock adjacent to roads. There was some additional language in that sentence that has been deleted, and so a municipality may regulate vehicular traffic and pedestrian safety. Also next, they can regulate siting and setback requirements for new infrastructure, including farm structures, in a manner that does not create public safety concerns, including fire safety concerns or neighboring buildings. And they also may regulate requiring that buildings open to the public be developed in compliance with the Vermont Fire and Building Safety Code.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Isn't that be already required by state law? Yes.

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: We're into belt and suspenders world here. Representative White. Yeah. Just a question on that. Some of the farming sort of section here. What what kind of

[Rep. Michael Hoyt (Member)]: buildings would be open to the long leg? We're talking about farm structures or, like, a little for selling farm products?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Potentially, yes. I'm hesitant to give examples. I mean, I do think farms have diversified their operations and are attempting to develop farm tourist tourism related. And so if their buildings are open to the public, the fire safety code is would apply.

[Rep. Michael Hoyt (Member)]: Know if fire safety code requires, like, sprinklers inside systems. I'm just wondering if I this would require, like, a farm building to have to make some upgrades, frankly, to their fire suppression. Not that that's really a bad thing.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Hello? So I do think it could. I think it depends on if the building has been recently renovated. I would I do not work on the fireside. So but I think it is often triggered by rehabilitation or remodeling if it's an existing structure. So I think potentially there are maybe cases where it wouldn't be triggered because the building is it preexists the

[Unidentified Committee Member]: the code.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: And can you give

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: us a couple of examples?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. I don't think I can, but you maybe Steve could. I don't know.

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: Steve Collier from the agency of agriculture. So title 20, I think it's in title 20 and the DPS's authority defines what buildings are public and what buildings that all of the life safety codes apply to. It's already defined. Farm structures are exempt from that. Farm structures do not include buildings that for human habitation, so farm worker housing, and they also do not include buildings that are open to the public, which I think is the same definition. I don't remember exactly how open to the public is defined because we don't regulate the buildings that are subject to a lot fire life safety code. But, certainly, an accessory on farm business that was an was a store, essentially, that it was, you know, permissible as an accessory on farm business, but was regularly open to the public. I think a building like that would be currently subject to life safety codes. A building that's simply a farm structure is not. Okay. Where it gets tricky is whether the hardest part is when it's a mostly a farm structure, but not exclusively farm structure, and that gets a little bit tricky if you put a store in the front of a barn. Certainly, we don't want the entire barn to suddenly be subject to everything, but possibly the section where the public is coming into might be, and that gets but that's I don't think this would change anything from what's currently exists, but they're being but they're being explicit that they have some authority in tier one a and b. And to the chair's points on tier one, we have a lot of concerns about using tier one to to tie this as well. That's in there because the the league wants it to be in there, and we understand that. But there is a proposal coming, I think, from the senate which will not tie any of this to to tier one a or b. So I think you'll have another thing. You'll have another opportunity to to look at this in a little bit different structure.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And, Ellen, do you know the league proposed some different language in this section yesterday to make it sort of more a little bit more, succinct. And is the ag committee considering that? Do you know?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I haven't been informed of that, so I I don't know.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Chittenden, we have you here.

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: I think my question was answered by Steve's response. Thank you.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Pritchard. On page on page four,

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: line four, that a a municipality shall not regulate noise, smell, lighting, and hours operate. Isn't that already protected in act 61

[Unidentified Committee Member]: that was passed last year? You're the right farm law? Are

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you ask wait. Who are you asking?

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: Whoever has the answer. Well,

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: we're talking very specifically about zoning bylaws. And I believe

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So that's not that wouldn't apply to that then.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That is different.

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: Yes. Yes.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: To fall into this category where there would be farms that could be regulated through zoning in tier one a and tier one b areas. It has to be farming that meets the RAPs, and then it's required to conform with the RAPs for a farm structure. And then there's this language at the bottom. This is one thing the House Agriculture Committee is still discussing. They may be changing it, but it's sort of a grandfather provision. So a parcel where farming is taking place has taken place prior to 07/01/2026, that has been conserved for agricultural purposes, or farm structures built prior to 2026 shall be exempt from municipal regulation. So existing farms that or areas that have been farmed or are conserved for farming in the tier areas are exempt from municipal regulations under this proposal.

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: Super that

[Rep. Michael Hoyt (Member)]: a point. Yeah. Mean, just looking at that, farming has taken place prior to July 1. Isn't that, like, an exception that, like, swallows the whole? Because, like, you know, the house I grew up on was in a farm, but fifty years before, it had been used

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: to

[Rep. Michael Hoyt (Member)]: farm. I mean, you know, I think you're probably gonna see a lot of land like that in Vermont. So I just wonder if there was consideration to saying, like, farming hasn't taken place in the prior twenty years or something like that. Just because, I mean, read literally, you know, mean, there were a lot of farmers in Vermont, you know, on a lot of land that would have had farming take place on it at some point in its history. So, I mean, that's just a question of whether that just would make everything exempt ultimately. You know?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. So house agriculture is it yesterday? Tuesday? What the last time I was in house agriculture, we discussed this exact issue

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Okay.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Of how far back. And that's why they are they are considering they are considering taking out or changing the prior to 2026. And they went back and forth between is it farm does it have to be take taking place now or or 2020 prior to 2026. They they have been discussing that, and I I'm going there in two hours. And I think I think they're considering a change to up related to that issue. I I don't know at the moment where they have landed.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Sure. It's not clear. Yeah. To follow on with representative Hoyt's question, how does that wording not exempt the reason for the Supreme Court decision? The one location for a Supreme Court, it, I think, spurred this whole Oh, Essex. This yeah. Essex. Wouldn't this exempt that exact operation? Potentially, yes.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: They've already been municipally regulated out of business. It's my understanding. Okay. Focus. It's gonna regulate agriculture right now.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Representative Austin? Yeah.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: So if a town or a municipality doesn't buy into tier one a or b, What regulations do they have to follow? Their zoning bylaws could not regulate farms that are regulated under the RAP rule.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: One of the goals is to return to how it was. So there would be room under that because the RAP rules have thresholds that at which they trigger something to become a farm. And so one example I know, because there are a number of different thresholds, and this is not my expertise, but the goats example. So you become a goat farm at having 15 goats. If you have 14 goats, you are not regulated under the RAP rule. And so towns would have authority potentially there.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Or if you had 15 goats that weren't selling anything, would they also then therefore have or you automatically farm whether you're selling it or not if you have 15 goats?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I believe so. I don't think there's a dollar amount associated with that one.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. That's the acreage in the

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: If you have four contiguous acres and you have a specified number of animals, then you are covered by the RFPs.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: If you had one acre and 14 goats, you're or 15 goats, you're still regulated by the town possibly.

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: Under the current framework, if you've spent $2,000 in sales or filed the schedule f, then even if you had 114 bills other than

[Unidentified Committee Member]: the year. Does that include the gold pairs?

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: That's

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: a KFO rule thing.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Happily, I dunked.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Inside joke. You guys

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: have fun here.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Additionally,

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: there is also further language on page five related to this. So still under that, towns can be less restrictive in Tier 1A areas if they want to be. There's some definitions of farm structure, food and poultry. And then there's this other concept which I had talked to you briefly about last time, which is no bile law shall have the effect of prohibiting cultivation or other use of land for growing plants for food or personal use, donation, or sale, including orchard crops, feticultural crops, and for maple sap or the raising and feeding of management of poultry, excluding roosters for personal use, donation, or sale. So the Agriculture Committee is also interested in this other provision that says towns they cannot fully prohibit cultivation of food and poultry on land, but they will allow towns are allowed to exclude roosters and potentially other livestock. Okay, okay. So this is intended to cover at least somewhat the the lesser than a farm you are growing or you have chickens. Towns can't fully prohibit that. They have some level of regulation they can apply. So I guess then to circle back to to tier one b tier tier one a and tier one b were were created under Act 181 in 2024. In order to determine those areas, the regional planning commissions and the municipalities are undergoing planning process right now to identify the areas that would qualify for tier one a or tier one b. So tier one b is governed by 10 VSA 6,033. The Regional Planning Commission shall identify areas on their maps as tier one fee. The qualifications for that is that the municipality where a tier one B area is proposed, they have to have a duly adopted town plan and planning process. They have to have permanent zoning and subdivision bylaws. They cannot include in that area identified flood hazard areas and fluvial erosion areas unless they have preexisting development on the area and it's suitable for infill development as identified in the river corridor rule. Municipality has to have water supply, wastewater infrastructure, or soils that can accommodate a community system, And the municipality has to have staff that operates their zoning program. And if that those qualifications are met, the Land Use Review Board as part of the regional plan review can approve those areas in a municipality. Those areas in the municipality are then eligible for the exemption under 6,081 Z, which allows for up to 50 units of housing per project, projects with up to 50 units of housing to be exempt from Act two fifty in those areas.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Isn't there an acreage limit?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: There is.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Is it it's 10 acres? Yes. Yes. So it's 50 units or fewer of housing on a tractor, tract of land involving 10 acres or less or for mixed units, mixed use development also with 50 units or less on 10 acres. So, areas that qualify as tier one A, the municipality has to apply for themselves, and they that there's a lot more zoning requirements required for those areas, and municipalities that achieve that area status, there there's a full Act two fifty exemption in that area, and the municipality has to be taking over the they have to have their municipal land use permit process in place and take over Act two fifty permit conditions into the municipal permits after that status is granted, and they're they start reviewing municipal projects.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And one b is popped in, Towns apply. They have to.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Correct. Towns have to ask the regional plan to include those areas on their maps. And then also with tier one a, towns have to affirmatively apply. So in both cases, towns have to be invested and request those things. Okay.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Chittenden. So there's two two questions versus pretty narrow. I'm wondering if either of you, I'm thinking maybe Steve, you have this, is some kind of a graphic or chart that shows when you're under the wraps with the acreage and the just some do you guys have something that illustrates that sort of typically around numbers of animals and or is it just in writing?

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: I can't think of a graph that we have, but it's it's really as simple as four contiguous acres, and you're either growing food or you have a specified Growing food for sale, or you have four contiguous acres and a specified number of animals, or you're a commercial farm. And if you're a commercial farm, that's defined as at least $2,000 in average annual sales of products or a schedule f. So we could put it in a chart, but

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: that's that's You probably had it well illustrated somewhere on the website.

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: Well, may. I I don't want our website. Right.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Was just if it was easily accessible, that would have been Yeah. Just to maybe return then, Ellen, to the tier one b and tier one a, but it seems much clearer. I asked this yesterday, folks from the water, but I wanna ask you just about unintended consequences of utilizing. So a, is there any history of us using act two fifty designations for other program, like other areas of statute like this? Is this this be sort of the first time an act two fifty? No. Now we're sort of switching the proxy? A Yes. Is this the first time we'd be using an act two fifty in this?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. But I do think act one eighty one was an attempt to unify those other references because, like, for example, previously, there were housing exemptions for areas that were designated for tax credits, and that's sort of how we got to priority housing projects because Those are exemptions for active 50. Yes. But they and they were based on qualifications and other programs. So, I mean, may Using those other programs for Act

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: two fifty. I misunderstand you, but I think in this case, we're using an Act two fifty language. Well, we've never had Act two fifty areas before. Right. So the previous way we were managing Act two fifty feels really different. And this is the first time we'd be using these tiers in this way and they're not yet defined. So I guess really I'm trying to get to what do you think the potential unintended consequences are that we should be aware of of using particularly one b that hasn't even been defined yet as my concern is what if we're incentivizing towns to become one b under act two fifty because they wanna be able to have zoning bylaws that affect agriculture. Is there an unintended can you imagine some unintended consequences of that?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I could get I don't I could get back to you. I I haven't thought about it. I don't know. Thank you. Do we know if the committee took testimony from agricultural advocacy organizations like NOPA or rural Vermont or

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Oh, yes.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yes. Yes, they did. Okay.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I mean, that's how we drew our witness list. We sort of went back to see who they heard from and invited

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm still like, because I feel like that is who we should be asking about those kinds of implications, and that didn't come through clearly to me.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I think what came through to me yesterday was that everyone wants the conversation to keep going, and they are not completely satisfied on this point.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Think that's what

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: I heard from NOFA. Yeah.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I also look at the list. It's a pretty light touch of things that are on the list that municipalities might be able to regulate. And Josh Hanford's here. I guess you brought us language. Did you bring those changes to the Ag Committee yet? Or are you

[Josh Hanford (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: Josh Hanford, VOCT. Our language to the ag committee was presented over a month ago, and it hasn't changed. You know, we the elements of zoning that we're trying to be consistent and not invent new terms and new titles, but reduce the area that it would be applied to farming to an area that is in fact, the tier one B areas are very much a thing and you have to achieve them and they're defined. It's not a, you just get to opt in or out. You just

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: reviewed all that.

[Josh Hanford (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: You're either eligible or you're not. If you're eligible, you can choose not to opt in. But it it was our best way of sort of realizing that the majority of municipalities and the majority of their land area do not wanna regulate agriculture, but in dense areas where competing interests exist, you have to have a way to manage those competing interests. That is simply stated, and with this new framework of Act two fifty exempt areas being a reality and being defined and being the process we're moving toward, that was the best way we could shrink this to as small as possible area.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Ellen, are you disappearing at 11:15?

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: 11:30.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Great. Because I think I'd like to if you don't mind, I think, Josh, you provided us that language yesterday. Maybe we should look at that with you right now. So be under yesterday on our web page under I suppose Josh or

[Josh Hanford (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: Spanza.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: The suggested changes are on slide five. Start on slide five. Steve Collier has the Agency of Agriculture weigh in on these. Are you part of why the ag committee hasn't made these changes, or do you are you okay with them?

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: I don't know if we're part of why the ag committee hasn't made them, but we but this is a much broader this proposal extends basically all zoning to farms and what the house ag committee sent to you in 05/2001, not all zoning. Towns can't prohibit. They can't functionally prohibit, but all of the array of whether it's landscaping or lighting or the the normal gamut of zoning activity, towns could apply to farms. And what the house ag committee did instead was try to create a targeted area where farms could be zoned. And that's certainly something that the agency has said, we're willing to explore zoning in tier one a and b even though it's not our preference, but we think it should be targeted so that farms aren't just having an extra layer or extra multiple layers of bureaucratic processes. We wanna target it to what do you actually need to do. As an example, our livestock, which we think are generally the biggest issue, are they creating some sort of public safety hazard? We're open to that conversation, but we don't think that farms should be zoned for lighting or for many of the things that come in them. That that are in that section where where the where the league proposed the language, they regulate things like schools and hospitals and churches. So they say they can't kick them out, but they also can pretty have pretty extensive zoning. Farms have never been zoned in Vermont, so our question is why? And if there's an answer to that, why it's necessary, we're very open to having that conversation, but we just want it to be targeted to what's really necessary.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Chapin.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Going Just back to the current draft on page four, lines thirteen, fourteen about the fire and building safety codes, I'm hearing it sort of duplicative. And I also when I see it here, it makes me concerned about whether typical grandfathering or, you know, the things that might be wrapped into an appropriate way to implement those fire and building safety codes might be missed by including this under the zoning. I guess I'm just I would love to get rid of that. And would that cause any concerns for any of the stakeholders in the room since it seems like buildings are already held public buildings are already Polokies buildings are already held to those.

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: If you want, not from our perspective, but I don't think this language is ready for prime time. I I don't think it's ready to actually become law. So I don't know how wedded House Agriculture Committee is is to that, why they put that in there exactly. And so our our preference and what we've been saying to both the league and also to the farm organizations is let's keep talking. And so I don't think this I would not recommend this draft be passed into law, but I we would encourage you to support it so that the House Agriculture Committee, which I really think is trying to bring in everyone's interest as best as possible, and I don't think anyone thinks this conversation is over. So not opposed to it, but I think the bigger picture is let's please try to keep getting this right.

[Josh Hanford (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: I would agree. I think there's maybe some unnecessary language there. I I'm not you know, fire safety should talk about that. I think what the committee is responding to is probably from BLSAT. They heard legitimate concerns around certain activities and, fire, and they probably just were trying to accommodate that. But I would agree very much with Steve that this language hasn't been vetted by all the parties to see if it's necessary to get it or undo something that already exists or solves a problem that doesn't exist. But from the league's perspective, you feel

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: like public use of farm buildings is already adequately addressed by current Vermont fire and building safety codes?

[Josh Hanford (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: My limited understanding is different types of farming operations that invite the public in to use those spaces and see those spaces have different standards, in fact, are regulated. What is not captured,

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: I can't

[Josh Hanford (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: it, but that's my understanding.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Really, I think I hope a simple one, but I think the House Environment Committee needs to be added to the study recipients list. Folks have further questions for Ellen or thoughts on recommendations at this time?

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: I just want to so

[Rep. Michael Hoyt (Member)]: seems like the impetus for this, right, is, like, there's an understanding that's shared that municipalities can't. So far, Supreme Court upends that. So part of the goal is to go back to the prior understanding. But this doesn't really go back to that. Right? It's like a new understanding where they can't do it except they're allowed to do it for certain tiers for certain activities. Right? So it's not just restoring the status quo, anti. It's it's something different.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It is it is something different. I I do think the House Agriculture Committee is responding to this idea that there are new areas being created where you are encouraging development, whole scale, in Tier 1A, but then the construction of housing in Tier 1B, and areas where housing is going to be more rapidly developed may have conflicts with farms, as that Supreme Court's case illustrated. So I think they are responding to that, and it isn't I think it is fairly narrow.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Mhmm.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Not a full

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Narrow, but still unable to respond to the actual concerns of the neighbors. I mean, it's because I feel like there's been agriculture adjacent to densely developed areas in Vermont for a very long time, and in fact, in our downtowns, in many of our towns still to this day. And I guess I I I hear the concerns of the league, and I look at the reality of our landscape and the reality of the limited nature of this language. And I I really question it, what we're gaining for it other than potentially some confusion. Representative Nora.

[Rep. Michael Hoyt (Member)]: And, not but, but and, given what representative White brought up, the upending of the current understanding of things,

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: we have to do something, I think, because it's even more confusing or less palatable in the current state. To be clear,

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I am very supportive of the beginning of this bill that clarifies that we need to yes. We needed to respond to this in court. Clarify the language for the Supreme Court. That's why

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: I do it, but something needs to be clarified.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. I think it does do it in the first section. I support the first section. It's the part of It's the exception. Yeah. It's the it's the part that we all acknowledge needs further conversation, that I'm having the need for further conversation. Double scale details.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I, Representative Chapin, I want to partially respond to your question about unintended consequences. So I did kinda come into the this bill late, and I had raised the question with house ag about areas that are already conserved for agricultural purposes in these areas. And so I had proposed that because we don't yet know what the tier areas are. There may be parcels that have already been conserved for agricultural purposes. And then if the municipality has the ability to either zone them out or diminish the ability for agriculture to actually place on that parcel, and that is why that was included in one of the exemptions.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Very interesting.

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I mean, and I'm actually going to think it was a case in Randolph with primary ag soils. Part of, I think, the intention of all of the people having this conversation is that you can have dense development adjacent to a wonderful food producing area that the neighborhood is actually supportive of or actually even engaged in, and I think be supportive of many Vermont communities' values and visions for their residents. So I want to be really careful when we meddle in that here. Representative Chapin.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: I was just curious if any of you know of the AG committee within the AG committee's conversations, if there's been consideration of just doing the first piece of restoring the AG may not be regulated by municipal bylaws or zoning bylaws. And let's sit down and have a conversation and sort of a working group around where could we do something in Tier 1A and or Tier 1B that was different or utilizing something other than the two fifty designation. So I guess I'm just curious if that conversation has transpired.

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: If you want, I can help. Yes, it has extensively in both the Senate and I Committee and the house committee, and the first impulse was to go back

[Unidentified Committee Member]: to right where we were, which is the easiest thing

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: to do. The league wasn't comfortable with that, and and from our perspective, they had a legitimate point with livestock and land. It's it's we couldn't and if you had 40 pigs on a quarter of an acre and you had $2,000 in sales, technically, you were a farm, and we could maybe stop that if they if they didn't comply with the RAP. We could enforce the RAP. If So they were discharging, we could enforce that, stop it. But if they were exporting their manure, which you can do, then there really wasn't any way that we could effectively regulate that situation. The four acre, the four contiguous acres, that's easy. Like, if someone has four contiguous acres, they shouldn't be subject to any of this. I mean, beyond anything more. They have the space. Where it got tricky was under four acres as a commercial farm, but some of those farms are really viable and incredibly successful in in our densely populated areas, and we never want to do anything to discourage that. But it's from our perspective, it's livestock. If you're going to have livestock, you need to have enough land to properly manage that, which is why the tiers to us is not the barometer. It's do you have enough land to responsibly manage your livestock? And the reason we chose an acreage is because the smaller the parcel, the more likely you are to be in densely populated areas. But but I yes. We could easily go back to where we were. Think in good faith, we felt like the league had a valid objection to that, and but our concern about expanding the thresholds to to meet the farming viability was there was nothing else to protect it. So we were always worried about raising the standard because then you've got a new farmer who can't afford more than an acre and a half. She starts a blueberry farm, she starts making smoothies, and she suddenly buys 10 more acres, and that happens. So we didn't wanna box any of those people out. So it's really up to us about livestock. You can make sure that you've got enough land to manage your livestock so that you're not discharging and you're not, you know, you're managing your land appropriately. We we feel like that should be the threshold. But again, the league's concerns, I are different, and I understand them. Of course, they're different because towns are worried about bigger things. Yeah. Mean, you're continuing to make

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: a case for what I think is sitting down and making a working group that would bring us recommendations for next year.

[Josh Hanford (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: And we couldn't accept going back because the fact is there's active lawsuits on you know, I brought up the one in Barton in the village downtown. It's on four and a half acres. It meets the wraps. The agency hasn't been able to address the issues, and the town since the Supreme Court case, is in instituting zoning to correct the issues. And I'd really wish, you know, if you're thinking about taking that right away to bring the town of Barton in, their zoning and planning administrator, talk about the case, talk about the lengthy process they've been going through to try to address the very serious health environmental justice concerns there. And the only way to deal with that problem is through municipal zoning. And there are likely to be more and more cases like that that will still be resolved through the courts if we don't have zoning laws to regulate them, only where there's more competing interests on smaller developed land. It's absolutely true. There's many valuable agricultural operations in town centers adjacent to housing. And when they work well, there's no problem and everyone loves it. And many of

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: the select board members are farmers,

[Josh Hanford (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: but when they don't work well and there's no remedy to address those concerns because there is no land use regulation implied, they go to court, cost a lot of money, and the Supreme Court has to decide how to balance this. And I think if we don't do something, it's those problems aren't going away. They're active ones that are under, courts reviewing right now, and we can't reverse those actions for our our municipal members.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So, do you know of another one? I mean, not diminishing the Barton example and I know very I get I get your concerns completely. Yeah. But I don't think this resolves them and it's not feeling like the right tool for the job.

[Josh Hanford (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: That's the only one under active court cases court case at the moment, other than, you know, the Essex case that brought this up that so they, you know, changed their zoning to not allow that, And that's what triggered the court case because then the farmers appeal, which is not allowed under the old regime. And so when there's these conflicts that can't be addressed through agencies means mediation through other examples, what you have left is local zoning and bylaw to address it.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I guess my concern though is that this isn't going to address the Barton problem or the Essex problem, and it also may we don't know. I'm not worried because there's not a lot of change here, but I I don't think it gets to the heart of your matter.

[Josh Hanford (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: We believe it it would, not the way it's presented here with all the carve outs, but Barton Village is a tier one B area, and this is in the

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: dense zone. So you're acknowledging, yes, this draft wouldn't you would take it further.

[Josh Hanford (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: We would take it

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: further because in both areas, towns should be able to regulate agriculture.

[Josh Hanford (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: That that's what it says, but they're carved out of exempting existing farms. We put the existing farm that is being alleged a zoning violation is in court, that would be unresolved. You know, I don't know what the legislation would undo the outcome or not, but it was designed to address that case and to continue to allow what Essex Junction did to stand.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And but I guess my question was more to the carve outs in this in like, you can only regulate traffic and ingress, egress, and maybe some buildings that are

[Josh Hanford (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: Yeah. Because they'd be able to apply setbacks in different first of all, the smell isn't a zoning issue. So that wouldn't be addressed through zoning. That's an ordinance issue, which any municipality has a right to have ordinance law.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So how come towns are not using that tool?

[Josh Hanford (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: It's very hard to enforce an outcome of smell is my understanding, just like it is noise. But on that farm case, this is why, you know, the zoning administrator that's taking this action in Barton would be best described the court case and how they're remedying it, but they're applying setbacks. They're applying other conditions to keep the neighbors around them safe and feel that it's addressing the concern of the pigs that are escaping, requiring fencing, and some shading, and some setbacks that are close to the elderly senior housing project that is being impacted. Those are the elements that will reduce the conflicts, not say that the farm has to leave.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: You feel like this would give other towns that tool? Yes. This language we're looking at.

[Josh Hanford (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: This this language, we're suggesting reducing and dialing it back, but our original language we presented would give our municipality tools should they choose to use them to address situations. It's not a mandate. This isn't you have to go through a process established like many will choose not to But when a conflict arises that has your residents and taxpayers at the select board meeting every couple weeks complaining and clamoring that they can't address it, this gives them a tool to try to address it. I think Senator Morley, who is the village manager, would be happy to talk about this situation as well. It's not a clear silver bullet solution to any of these problems, and it's best to work out, and and that's what part of the study in here is is to maybe find a way to minimize this, have a standard model zoning that would try to keep it consistent so that there wasn't different rules so that farmers could understand if a town chooses it, this is the zoning that will be in effect. So it's not different. We definitely want to do that and don't wanna have an impact on farms that is undo, unjust. But when conflicts arise, someone the municipal level is usually where those things are first dealt with and taking that authority away has been a problem, not often, but has been, hence the court case and is currently a problem in at least one municipality and perhaps others. We believe that these areas are required to have 20 units per acre of housing, that's going to create more density near potential agriculture operations that both parties would benefit knowing what the rules are before investments are made and conflicts arise. Do you feel like the study group in here will I'm just skimming through the study group. It's pretty sprawling there. It it feels like it maybe needs to be more focused.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I mean, seeing, like, how addressing how municipal regulations have affected or could affect regional food security, farm succession, establishing a I

[Rep. Michael Hoyt (Member)]: think that

[Josh Hanford (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: was at the request of some of the farm groups that through this conversation, and Steve could

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: get his

[Josh Hanford (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: opinion here, that have brought other concerns into this conversation other than just the one we're dealing with. And so that's what that's an attempt at. The way we have supported agriculture is by saying, that's the regulations on you. That'll hopefully help your business model. There's other ways to do that, such as actually giving incentives to not develop prime ags, as giving deference to municipal zoning that says in ag preferred areas, you can't build housing. And those aren't items that have been explored to address this problem. And so that was a a way for those farm groups to enter that conversation that maybe this needs to evolve over a number of years because the tools of non regulation and municipalities not being able to regulate agriculture clearly hasn't been as helpful to date in reducing the number of farms that are struggling. And so our main theory is the sky's not falling because of the Supreme Court case. Municipalities haven't regulated agriculture. They haven't been part of the reason why they're not being successful because these regulations, there's only been one case since that was allowed. Now we here we are nine months from, and that was to address a long standing problem that's been known about for more than five years. So there could be time to deal with these issues more broadly, But knowing that it's important for the ag agency, the ag groups to have some fear put aside that municipalities across the state aren't just all of a sudden going to regulate every agriculture. We've been at the table trying to reach consensus and saying, we're only really concerned about it in 2% of Vermont's area, where the most people live and where the state has said you have to allow 20 units per acre development and we're putting all our incentives and all our eggs in that basket, including release of Act two fifty. This is where we believe the conflicts will occur. Let's try to get the zoning right there so we don't have more court cases and problems. That's the basis of our approach to this.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank you. Further questions for Ela? Alright. So but before us as a committee is to weigh in with our agriculture committee on, on this language as we see it today. Maybe it'll change a little bit. Same similar process to what we talked about earlier with the energy committee. Yeah. Thoughts? Chattel. She can go if she

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. I got both.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. Think

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: she'll get one. If

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: she wants to.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Thoughts?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Everyone's singing about lunch? Representative Bob?

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Yes, you know, I would hate to not move this bill because I think it's a conversation that has to happen and it's a long process. It's a process, but I don't know if it would help if we would prioritize, what our concerns are and our hopes that they would be addressed either I mean, it has to be in tomorrow, right? Is that or do they have

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: to You have to vote it out if it's good to go.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Right. And then hopefully in the Senate, they could address some of our concerns if they take up the bill.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Chapin.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: My thoughts are we have a very long standing history of making sure people can raise food for sale or not for sale interstate. And this piece, this understanding that got overturned with the Supreme Court case, we need to address that. I fully understand and am concerned about tools available in municipalities and neighbor neighbor conflicts where the tools aren't in place. And I just want to make sure the league understands, that is not a small issue, but it is an isolated issue. And full heartedly support some compromise around that. I am extremely concerned about utilising tier 1B in particular, but generally back to 50 tiers for a wholesale other purpose and that, like maybe down the road, we'll get there, but don't even know what they are yet. And that is seems sort of, I mean, I don't want to use overly extreme language, but it just seems insane to me. So I don't really why it's the first thing and could make sense. But I don't think we're in a place to do that. Feels extremely concerning to me. Really concerned about people's ability to grow their own sustenance. And I from hunting to growing our food, like in twenty, fifty years from now, we might largely be relying on that to eat. Who knows? Maybe it's fifty years down the road, maybe it's less, but it's down the road. And I just want to make sure we preserve that really adequately both for people now and their rights to be able to raise food and affordability reasons that people raise their own food and maintaining their cultural knowledge that we need to put our own food. I guess I'm just, I'm really concerned that this bill in its current form might have some immediate implications around that. And I don't think we have enough time to address any of these issues that I just brought up with this bill in the timeframe that we need to pass it to the house. So personally, I see a potential solution to really move forward with that first section, going back to the old understanding and creating a process by which we get some really clear recommendations back from stakeholders and some agreement, which seems like the stakeholders are maybe even fairly close to getting to, but might take until next year to really implement something around probably zoning. So that's just where I just feel like a couple of these concerns are so large I don't know really how to get through that with this bill.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So I share much of that perspective. And I guess I'm wondering, Ellen, about other tools, because I think that I really appreciate that the two main stakeholders are here working and working this out and sharing their time with us, and that they're respecting each other's need for some sort of a line in the sand or a stake. And I guess I'm wondering about was there a conversation about another tool that would both clarify the way it was that people agree that in the vast majority of the state we could continue and also, allow some limited appropriate municipal regulation of agriculture activities?

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: Because that's There's been many I mean, we we started talking back right after the supreme court decision. Didn't talk a lot over the summer, but had many, many meetings with VLCT and also separately with the farm organizations our agency did. VLCT even invited me to talk to their board, very appreciative. They changed their policy to, they didn't expect this result, but they did change their policy because normally their policy is to have as much local control as possible, and they sort of ceded that. So the communication's been terrific, with the farm organizations too, who have a slightly different some of them in particular have a slightly different perspective along the lines of what representative Chapin was just talking about, which is maybe more on the homesteader line, making sure that's clear. Everybody agrees, though. Part of the reason the wrap, the RAP thresholds were important was because there was no protection below that. So everyone agrees every that everyone should be able to grow their own food, and that's why the backyard poultry is in there. So that's a way of growing your food, but it doesn't have the same implications. You can have eggs or meat, but it's not the same implications as pigs or cows. So the everyone was aligned that people should be able to grow their own food regardless of whether they're technically farming or selling it. Everyone should be able to raise their own chickens if they, you know, small amount, reasonable amount. The challenge, really the challenge was tier one, and that was the league's concern about densely populated areas. We understand the concern, we thought it was we our preference is not treat farming differently anywhere, but make sure there's enough land if you're having livestock to responsibly manage it. And so that we are very much aligned, but there is that disconnect in tier one. Our concern about tier one tier 1B, you know, it's planned growth development, it's also current farming, a lot of current farming. And so we don't, you know, yes, there's the pigs in Orleans, I understand that. That's an issue, but we don't think that you develop state law based on one issue, and there are other ways to deal with that. Government is not always the solution. Sometimes it is, sometimes it's not, but neighbors can also take actions on their own without relying on the government. And so I'm not saying that, of course, government wants to be responsive, but we can't solve every problem. So trying to find that, you know, that balance is important, but, you know, we we know that plant growth area is important, but we just keep losing farms and farmland. It's not because of municipal zoning. It is because it's so hard to be violent. But every time you add another requirement, it makes viability more challenging. And so if we if our farms were thriving, and they were making money, and they were expanding, I don't know that we'd care about zoning, but they're not. We you know, there's only 9% of Vermont is now growing crops. It used to be 80% a 100 ago. So and that's not stopping the and we continue to lose farmers and farmland. So anything we can do to try to make their obstacles fewer, we think it's important. But we but the communication has been fantastic. I couldn't be any happier with and with the farm organizations as well. We're all trying really hard, it's just we're not quite there, and we wanted to come in with a consensus proposal and say, this is it, but we just have some fundamental differences on a couple of things.

[Josh Hanford (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: And I would just add, you know, the agency's original proposal was trying to get at some of the same issues we are presenting through the tier being the place we address it by the acre size and by updating the wraps, moving the sales threshold, having an acre size, you know, our view is that is everywhere across the state. We don't need to. We wanna focus it in areas where it it matters, and you could have farms and other municipalities now potentially regulating have unintended consequences that they're not asking for in addition, and you should hear from the farming groups, but they have always expressed this concern of opening the racks. And our proposal isn't open the racks. It just says in these areas, get some control, but we have to we can't have zoning that intends with the functional use of farming, just like all these other important institutions in The States. The first place in the state law where we're moving a private action on someone's land to just as important as a hospital and a school and a church, that's a pretty big deal for our board and our members to vote and say, no. We wanna give up the local control, the authority that the supreme court gave us. Usually, that that's a hard line. Why would we give away municipal authority? But we we we we recognize it's not important in rural landscapes. It's only important in places where these conflicts arise if you choose to take that opportunity. As we know, over a third of Vermont municipalities have no zoning, so this wouldn't even be something they could take advantage of. And of the tier one b areas, maybe half won't even opt in. So you're choosing not to take the authority to have a new zoning that has some ability to control some aspects of farming, but if you choose to, to address the problems, then that's what we always support as the league that represents all the municipalities. But I would say Steve's proposal was trying to address the concerns that exist on some smaller parcels that are commercial farms. They meet wrap. It's $2,000 of sales, but these problems are still arising because if you're not a commercial farm, but you're doing agriculture, municipalities can regulate you now. So like the fear of the backyard, the hobby, like I don't understand because that's been in existence Yeah. Since there's been municipal zoning. So what we're really talking about is commercial farms that meet the definition, the municipality being able to have some limited land use regulations in areas where people live in close proximity and there's competing interest for a commercial farm.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I wonder I know that you are aware of the litigation that's current, but, I mean, I'm aware of maybe one or two kind of insidious situations that are the same where someone is, practicing maybe spite agriculture because they don't like a municipal limitation that they ran into or but the neighbors don't have the resources to litigate. And so I'm wondering about an informal survey of that. I I'm not saying it's a huge problem, but I know of some in in Addison County, and perhaps others know in their areas.

[Josh Hanford (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: I'd say we hear of occasions from both sides, both either other landowners that are upset that someone is using agriculture to skirt zoning, and they are quite upset that that's happening, and others that are complaining about agri Those things happen. But we don't have any statistical survey that we can present to you, but it is a thing.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It'll be more of a thing, sadly. Representative Austin? I just

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: wanna say that that's why I asked when NOFA, NOFA protected their testimony, why it was compelling to me, because it seemed like they had gotten some consensus among the different groups to agree to the bill. And again, I don't think it's perfect, but that was powerful testimony to me.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Alright. Further questions or comments on this? Not seeing any for now. We will need to opine with our agriculture committee, so encourage everyone to think about it over lunch and after lunch we will need to make a recommendation. Thanks, Ellen, and other stakeholders who are here joining us.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Thank you

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: very much. Thank you.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We will adjourn for lunch.