Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Good morning, Friday, January 16. Looks like we're going to make it through another week. We are going to spend some time this morning with General Counsel, Agency of Agriculture Food and Markets, Counsel Steve Collier, and I'm going to go over a couple of subjects, mainly some language to help the Supreme Court decision with what they had decided, they thought language said, about farming complying with local zoning. Councilwoman, my name is Steven Heffernan. The floor is yours, sir.

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: Thank you. My thunder is pretty limited. Good morning, everyone. Steve Collamore from the Agency of Agriculture. Good to see you all. So I'm not going to go a lot into the history of why we think this language is so important because you you know that farming is critical to Vermont, but that's why we're here. That's why we think it's critically important to to undo what I think the Supreme Court, in my opinion, was mistakenly did. But in in working toward that, what our goal, which was to to, again, make agriculture exempt from zoning, we thought it made some sense to look at the principles of what we're really trying to protect and and also to work with the stakeholders Yeah. To try to come to a so we could all come in here ideally and be asking for the same thing rather than asking you to sort through a a variety of really conflicting proposals. So we didn't reach consensus, but I'm actually pretty pleased with how close we came, and that's with the league of cities and towns, and then all the different agricultural groups. And there are some differences, but there's a lot more commonality than there are differences. But our but our first step and I'm gonna I'll give you the language in a little bit, but if you don't mind, I'm just gonna talk about the principles because I think that's actually more important than I like the education council. The language kinda fits in after that. So the way that before the Supreme Court opinion worked was that farming was exempt from zoning, but if you met certain criteria within the required agricultural practice. It wasn't all farming. It was farming if you were of a certain size, certain number of animals, certain types of you had to meet certain thresholds. If not, if you didn't meet those thresholds, then towns could apply zoning too. They don't have to, but they they could. So that was the framework, and there were some pieces of that framework that weren't perfect. It isn't nothing ever is. So we wanted to sort of reevaluate that framework to to sort of try to address some of the concerns that do arise legitimately in towns and communities when agriculture is happening. But our our fundamental sort of concept is we want everyone in the state of Vermont to be able to farm whenever they have the land land that enables them to do so. And we don't care where it is, as long as, again, you have the land capacity to do so. So there are areas in the state right now where you can't farm, plenty of them, because there just isn't any land base. There's no way to do it. But if there's any parcel of land right now where someone can reasonably farm, we want them to be subject to the same rules and requirements as every farm in the state and not to have additional burdens that other farmers don't face. And that's because farming is so important and because it's so difficult. You all know the challenges that farmers face, so ramping up the requirements on farms can really make a difference on whether or not they're able to be viable, and that can be particularly true for the small farmers or new and skinny farmers. So we want to create a framework that applies to everyone, and then the question is, how do you define that framework? Well, when thinking about what matters so much about farming, there's just kind of took it one step at a time is, one, is we want everybody in Vermont to be able to grow food. And when I say grow food in this context, I'm talking about growing plants because livestock could arguably also be growing food, but there's different parameters that come with livestock and different concerns. So we want everyone to be able to grow food for themselves. Interestingly, that's not actually protected. Not a lot right now. I'm not aware of any towns that try to regulate it, but there isn't actually a a protection in Vermont right now to grow your own food. So we thought, let's start there. And that doesn't mean that it has to be regulated by the Agency of Agriculture. We don't want to regulate someone's vegetable garden. It's not something that needs to be regulated by us, but we would like to ensure that it is protected. Right now, it's only within it's only protected from zoning if you're big enough to fall within the required agricultural practices. So we just looked at that and said, wow, why can't everyone grow their own food? And we talked to the league of cities and towns about that, and they were very supportive of it, which is great. They agreed. Yes. Everybody should be able to grow their own food. So that was kinda principle one. Okay. Let's make sure whether you're farming or not, you can grow food. A corollary to that is is poultry. So there are some times in in the supreme court case arose from ducks in Essex and whether or not you could have ducks in Essex. So right now, if you are farming, towns can't regulate your street. But if you're not farming, towns can. And so we want everybody to be able to grow their own food, within reason, and we we talked to the league about this too, and thought that it's reasonable for people, if they have, you know, if they have an area to do it, to have poultry, to be able to have a small backyard flock of chickens or ducks or any domesticated bird. But we also recognize that roosters create some different issues than other types of birds because of the noise they make in the morning. So if you've got a bunch of roosters in a downtown or a suburb, that could be a problem. So they said, okay. Let's also protect small backyard of poultry. That doesn't exist right now. Right now, you have to be farming under the RIPs to be able to to to guarantee your ability to have poultry. And, again, the league was supportive of that. So, yeah, we're not worried about some small backyard flocks. Now I'm sure this will other people will disagree about this for sure. And when we wrote the language, we just said exactly that. Small backyard poultry flock. We there'll probably be some request to define the number, to talk about what types. Fine. Okay. But we did we just wanted to start broad and say, okay. You can do that. What's your department or not? And, again, the league was on board. So that that was great from our perspective. You can grow food. You can have chickens. So if you wanna have some meat and eggs in your

[Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: own property, you can do that.

[Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: So yes. Of course.

[Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Going back to what what we said, it's as far as defining what small is. I mean, that when you don't put a number to it, that could, you know, maybe some of the problem matters.

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: Understood. I expect there'd be discussion about that. Okay. There was not a consensus. I solicited ideas about numbers, and there wasn't a consensus issue. So rather than just make one up myself, because I don't think there's a magic number, we just had small backyard flock, and I expected that to get some discussion. K. And it's a reasonable point of discussion. But then the so then the next thing was, okay. We've we've addressed those issues. Everyone can do can grow, you know, can grow plants and can have a small backyard flock. What's the real issue? And it's and it's often livestock, at least when you're talking about with neighbors and and compatible interests in a in a certain area. So it's you know, obviously, you can't have 50 cows downtown Rutland. You can't have a 100, you know, 50 pigs in Downtown Montpelier. But so so we wanted to focus on for livestock, we wanted to basically ensure that anyone that has the land base to have livestock and and an appropriate number of livestock for that land base can do it. Now the current threshold under the RAP is, interestingly, the RAPs right now, before the Supreme Court opinion and now, only apply they start by applying to a four four contiguous acres. So you are the general default position right now is that you are farming if you have at least four contiguous acres. And then for livestock, there's a certain number of livestock for for all the different species. So if you got four acres and a certain number of livestock, you're farming under the RAPs. That's the same for growing food, interestingly. We're growing plants. Right now, if you're farming under the RIPs, it's four contiguous acres. Where that the sort of, I don't know, loophole, not the

[Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: right term because it was

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: intentional, but the way that you can bypass the four acre standard currently is if you have $2,000 in sale and on average, you have $2,000 for agricultural sales or you file a schedule f with your income tax with the federal government. So that's where the the four acres can be not necessary, and it's where you have some of the conflicts that we've seen in the past can arise, including with the ducks at Essex. That farm that duck farmer, he was farming under the RAPs. He had a half an acre. He had $2,000 in duck sales and eggs. Was He farming, under the RAPs. But, obviously, in a half acre parcel, you can have different, neighborly relations than you can have in a 30 acre parcel or or a 100 acre parcel. So with livestock, because there's, you know, there are waste and and nutrients that you need to manage or that the livestock generate, and also when you're growing food to help the livestock, you need land to do it. So we what we wanna do is keep the four acre standard there with that number of animals. That will continue to apply, but we actually wanna expand it below four acres so that farmers under four acres can also have livestock provided they have an adequate land base to manage the waste and and the and the nutrients. So we talked to the league about this. We talked a lot internally about this issue, and where we settled was, let's enable livestock to be farming and exempt from zoning if you have at least one acre. So if you have between one acre and four acres, then you would have the ability to be farming under the agency of agriculture's authority if you have enough land base. So we talked to the league about that, and part of the idea there is if you've got less than one acre, you're much more likely to be in the developed areas. So if you've if you're in a subdivision, if you're in a suburb, if you're in town, and you're on less than one acre, that's more likely to have some of the collateral impacts we talked about. So we said to the league, you you, towns, if they want to, and our and our proposal can regulate under an acre. They don't have to, but if it's less than an acre, that's that seems reasonable to us that towns have authority in that area because of the densely populated populated areas potentially. And we and the league, you know, was talking to you a couple days ago, I think, and understand their concerns, and they're wonderful to work through without. But instead of taking a map approach when those maps are often going to be ongoing and developed and be in the future, we'd rather look at the land itself. Like, you know, we're not really comfortable with a map, and I I don't I'm not not disagreeing with the concerns that they raise, but why look at the map instead of the first?

[Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Well, I think that we raised that concern in here, and we did it well, and it will keep on going back where I have, and thankfully, my committee has stood with me on it, but we talked about, and I can't remember the whole situation, but we talked about last year a woman growing strawberries, the one that we talked about was not growing, baking 12 loaves bread a day. And she was shutting down making a living out. Then all the permits got too much for her and it was like $300 or whatever it was. We were able to waive the permits. Then we did some cottage industry stuff. So we agree that we can't just look at a map and say, No, you can't do that, because sometimes they need to start where they could start. They're in their kitchen, they're in their backyard, and sometimes it isn't even about livestock or poultry or or vegetables. It's about being able to to start where you can start because the only way we're going to increase numbers in this state is not coming from the top down, but from the bottom up. And sometimes you're starting at the smallest scale. And so we're we're with you. And we said to

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: the league, we will fight you on that. And because we do strongly believe that. Yeah. And and just I think you all understand that they're they're saying for they're agreeing with us for all the state except in those select tier one tier tier one a and b areas where they want authority. But I appreciate your your position, and that's where we are too. But, you know, we we really appreciate that the league they they changed their charter. They talked with us. They they they were granted authority they've never had. And instead of saying that, you know, nice try in the sea of agriculture, but we like this, which they could have reasonably done, they are working with us.

[Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: And we thought we got a good discussion with them as well. Yeah. Yeah.

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: But but I we still believe that we any piece of land that can be reasonably farmed in Vermont, we wanna keep that open for farming. While they may be talking about, you know, I think they said about 3% of land, well farming's now only on 9% of land in the state of the harvested crop land. So the farmland shrinks shrinks shrinks shrinks, and so and it's so expensive to get involved in farming that unless you're born into it or you're wealthy, you can only start small. So if some and and there are some industries like growing mushrooms or growing some types of groceries where you can be really quite successful on a very small plot. So we don't want anybody who can farm to be told they can't do it there, or to face heightened regulations beyond what they would face if they just happen to have enough money or enough land to be farming somewhere else. So that's kind of our, but but we do recognize that you can't have livestock everywhere, and you can't have too many livestock everywhere. So that's why that one to four acre area, it just felt reasonable to say, if you've got the land base for the number of animals you want to manage, sure, you can do it. If you want four goats on two acres, and you've got the land base to manage your manure, and you can, you know, feed them without with while you're complying with the RAPs, which means you're not discharging onto your neighbor's property, you're not discharging to water on it. But if you wanna have 300 pigs on it, on 1.2 acres, that's not gonna work. And so so that's kind of, where we landed. In league, you know, there was back and forth discussion with that, and they they, what made them comfortable was that they could have a voice in that process, so we would have the discretion to make the decision, but they said they'd like us to talk to the town. So we thought that was a reasonable request. We don't have to defer to the town, but we did build in, in our language, a consultation requirement. So before we make a determination between one and four acres, we'll talk to the town here if they have any concerns, which can be better anyway, because if they do have some concerns, maybe we can mitigate them, or maybe what they're just right, and we can agree with them. So we built that in, which it's a little bit more cumbersome, but it's also, I think, worth it. And it's also an expansion. Right now, that doesn't exist, this one to four acre. Right now, it's just four acres, or if you have $2,000 in sales or file a schedule at. So then the the corollary that we touched on that is under an acre. The league could regulate if they want to. A lot of towns wouldn't regulate livestock if they want to. A lot of towns wouldn't, but if the town wanted to, they could. And so we, you know, we we've had an example where we had goats living in a walkout basement on a tenth of an acre, and they were milking the goats so they could meet the $2,000 product sales. And and it was a really difficult kind of decision for us because there isn't anything in the current RIP that requires you to have a certain amount of land. And so, technically, they could meet that $2,000 threshold, but they didn't have any way of complying with the RITs on that tenth of an acre, because there's no way they could manage with the animals without discharging to their neighbor. So it was so we don't want we don't wanna be regulated to go downtown on a tenth of an acre. And we if towns want to, they can or cannot, but that doesn't seem like something that really the RAPs were built to address. So that's that's, you know, really the the framework that we came up with, and I and I think, you know, there's a lot of things to like about it. There's some things to to question about it for sure. But the fact that everyone can grow food, they can have poultry, that they can have livestock as long as they have enough land base, and that there's uniform regulation for every farmer in the state, provided they meet those criteria is pretty good, I think. And in some ways, would be better than what we had, because I think it's a little bit more deliberate and a little bit more thoughtful.

[Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: But,

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: obviously, people can have a different perspective. The one the other thing that we so the the way that you can currently qualify with very little land like these ghosts is the $2,000 threshold that the schedule left, and the league was pretty concerned about that because they thought it allowed people to do too much on too little land, and it was a way to kind of create conflict in concentrated areas without actually having enough land to farm. We talked a lot about whether we need a monetary threshold and whether that's an important part, but if we're sticking to the four acre standard, we really think that it is important that people have another way to qualify. An example is the strawberry farm owner that I think you all heard from up in Northwest Vermont, who has two or three acres of a strawberry parcel, pick her own strawberry parcel, And as a corollary to that, she had a farm stand. And she was, I think, selling ice cream and maybe some other farm products, which is what accessory on farm business is all about. And what we want to allow people to do is if you're farming and this is something that we all changed two years ago, I think now. Right now, any farmer can sell every farmer's products, and that's wonderful because you you if if you're farming, you have to be principally producing the products from your own farm. But if you're an accessory on farm business, you can sell other farmers' products. So if you have a perfect spot for a roadside stand or for a little farm shop, you can now sell all Vermont farmers' products from your shop, which is terrific because it creates that local market for all the farms, not just the one. If you're doing that, though, you're not farming anymore, you're an accessory on farm business, and towns can't right. They can't stop you, but they can regulate you. Mhmm. They can't have site plan review, and they can't have a performance standard, because it can be in that densely populated area. So we wanted we didn't wanna require that somebody has four acres, because you could be successful on one. So the but the $2,000 threshold, the league was uncomfortable with it because they thought it allowed it was too much of a a loophole, and and it was created at least ten years ago. So there's been some inflation, you know, since then. And we felt like to get the broader compromise, it made sense to up it some. So we proposed $5,000, would would be the qualifier instead of two. The lead countered with 10. They really wanted to do 10, and we we talked more about that, and that actually impacts a lot more farmers than you think in Vermont, because a lot of farmers, you make less of that. So we we talked with them, and they agreed that $5,000 was a reasonable number. The farm groups don't wanna increase. I don't know. I think it's true that all of them don't. I know at least most of them do not wanna increase increase the standard from 2,005 thousand dollars. But in part of our compromise with the league, that's what we agreed was a was a reasonable. So that's kind of I don't know if there's I think that's basically the the framework. I don't know if there's any questions about that. Questions?

[Robert Plunkett (Member)]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. So welcome in, Steve. Thanks for your work on this. It seems to me that we have two sort of different perspectives here. If livestock is not involved, it doesn't seem like we have very many issues. I don't know how people can have conflict with some of those growing strawberries next to park. Maybe they don't like strawberries, but beyond that, I can't imagine why they'd be but when you bring livestock in, to me, there is a difference, and I understand that. I don't know what the answer is either, and I know you guys worked hard to come to a

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: of a middle ground on that.

[Robert Plunkett (Member)]: I would love, if we could, to just go back to where we were before the Supreme Court decision, and if that means and, yeah, that was the other question I had. Does this mean we gotta open up the RAPs again? Well, the lay

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: what we propose in the language is legislature actually amends both the statutory authority and the RAPs so that it can be done in one fell swoop. Not most of the RAPs, just the sections that apply to this municipal zoning. Because if you don't do that, that means we have to go through rulemaking. We can't accomplish this quickly, and it would be at least a year out before you could actually make the changes. So I would just see if you go to the line I can hand up the language now.

[Robert Plunkett (Member)]: We'll we'll get it on the iPads too.

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: Does anybody want a copy of it? Or I do, please. Sure. Great. Thanks, Jacob. Anyone else? You can. So so that's but to to your point, though, senator, I would say that what we propose does go back to where we were and actually expands it quite a bit, and they can grow food without without misregulation.

[Robert Plunkett (Member)]: Expands it from whose perspective? That's a

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: nice question. Farmers' rights. So mean, the ability to grow food. Like, you you would have a right to grow food, which does not currently exist. Right? And it's not regulated, but it doesn't exist as a right. No. You could have poultry, which doesn't exist as a right, and you would have the same rights, to have livestock, including under four acres, which doesn't exist now. The the only change to that is the $2,000 requirement would go to $5,000, And the schedule schedule f is just reporting your farm income. So right now, as I understand it, if you have $50 of farm income, you can file a schedule f so you could deduct your your your related expenses from that income. Right. So it's basically the argument on the other side is why that's not enough. It's like, there's no really no requirement if you have if you sell something. Now there's lots of farmers who qualify for farming who aren't selling anything. But so it does raise that to $5,000, and, you know, I don't there's no magic number that's there, but it's if for a for a farmer who's doing it's a big part of their life, doesn't seem like a tremendously burdensome threshold, and it's not the only way to get there. If you've got four acres, you can get there. And and so it's just and it's it's a compromise, because the league, you know, we really we felt, not everyone agrees, there's a lot of people in both of these chambers who we've gotta convince. Yeah. And so we felt to have the league aligned with us as much as possible might be really important. And I think fundamentally, I'm much more concerned about restoring the exemption than I am about the smallest contours of it. So meaning the $2,000, the $5,000, yeah, it could affect some folks, but it's much more important from our perspective to make sure farming is protected. And so, you know, that's that's the political aspect of it is what what is feasible, and you know, all of you will decide that. Okay, thank you.

[Brian Collamore (Member)]: Thank you, When you said strawberries brought up, who wouldn't mind that? Wouldn't mind that, but what happens if your neighbor, hemp and marijuana gonna fall under this as a fireman? Because if it does, and you have a neighbor that now it's legal for them to smell is gonna be

[Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: They're throwing ducks in there. You know? I mean, it's really where we got to it. So I you know? Yeah.

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: I agree. I mean That that

[Brian Collamore (Member)]: you know, there you can on a half acre. That is I don't know how you can protect neighbors because it is your right now, which it should be, but it's almost like secondhand smoke. You know, if it, if it, I don't know if wording would be put in if it creates an abnormal order, order, order, ochre.

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: I cannot say that word for some reason, okay?

[Brian Collamore (Member)]: I don't know if there's language that can be put in that they do have, neighbors have like, our neighborhood was great, and this person come in and started throwing this stuff, and now that's all we can smell during the summer. As much

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: as I wanna protect the farmer, I wanna

[Brian Collamore (Member)]: protect the people that we weren't planning

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: on as soon. Well, it's an important point, all I would say is that in our proposal cannabis is not included cannabis is not farming under state law. It's because it's regulated by the cannabis control board, and there's some important monetary reasons for that as well, because we if we regulate cannabis because it's illegal federally, that jeopardizes a lot of federal funding that we receive to help farmers. And so we don't we don't wanna do anything to jeopardize that federal Well, but

[Brian Collamore (Member)]: this board was talking that that we want to, maybe up until it starts being produced, that it is actually in the ground, it is agriculture.

[Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Before it actually becomes a used product, why it's in the ground growing, we want to be involved, mainly to protect farmers, to be able to do the schedule F as far as to deduct their expenses and all of that. Now once it's processed and out of the field and it goes to a different regulatory scheme, which I'm very fine with. But we have been in fairness to the agency of agriculture. Are in very heavy discussions and I think in agreeance that we are trying our best to walk that fine line of where we are with cannabis and marijuana, but really on the farming side of it. Yes, you bought fertilizer, you bought seeds, you've done it, you've watered it, you've got expense, you've paid your taxes on your land, you've got your insurances and all of that, and you're a farmer in our eyes. Then once it becomes the product, for us we want to really make a distinction. We want to be able to draw that line of, okay, you're growing something. It doesn't matter whether it's carrots or something, but then once it does leave the field, it's a different regulatory process. Well, this is we've been having a lot of discussion about, but we're you're probably gonna see some more of that.

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: Well, please just think about this. So there's cannabis can be both hemp, as you all know, and it can be and it can be cannabis, which is intoxicating. Hemp? No problem. Right. It's legal under federal law. Right. We we can regulate with that. Right now, USDA regulates that because they have the same they have the same program, and it makes sense for it to be done federally. Cannabis is illegal federally, and as an example, we're we're working on getting 31,700,000.0, I think, from the federal government to compensate farmers for their losses in 2023 and 2024 so we can get that out to farmers. If we are regulating cannabis that's illegal under federal law, there's something called the Drug Free Workplace Act Right. Which says that if the if if you were if you handle cannabis, if you were regulated responsible for cannabis in the workplace, you don't get any federal money. So we've had a lot of discussions, and there's a reason that this has all unfolded. But we just please talk to us about Yeah. Cannabis because we can't, in our opinion, can't jeopardize $30,000,000 as just one of the many types of money to and we under we're sympathetic. It's not that we are, in any way, opposed to folks growing cannabis. It's just that keeping the cannabis control board doesn't get any federal money. Right. And hemp is different. Hemp is legal. But cannabis, it just there's that, we rely so heavily on federal government. I do get that.

[Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Yeah, we do get that. And I do think that there's a fine line to walk there. And I think it's more than just a description. But yes, we are we don't have any bills on that yet. We are a lot of what we are doing is putting our ideas out there, our where we think that we wanna be, and then having discussions.

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: Yeah. And we've been talking to the hemp processors, and we've been talking to the cannabis board. I think there is a path for the hemp processors, but and I do think there's some statutory changes that are required. It's just that in our talks with CCB and us, we'd like to keep that under the CCB just because there's there's no way to always keep it hemp. And if it's not hemp, then it then it crosses into but there but, yes, I think there's we agree there are issues that need to be addressed there.

[Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: And we do align with the idea that, hemp is not an ectopsic antifesis or marijuana, because cannabis is what we're learning. So we do a lot of that. Back to the language, fully understand how we got to this decision with the ducks and the marijuana on a haptic road land in a community that was zoned residential and kind of pushed the issue of it. But I'm also looking, even when the league was in here and talking, know, the time that you've been in here, that the Supreme Court left the door open. And the fact that said, Hey, here's the language. Okay. Well, they went by the language, and then for us to make a different outcome is to change language, more than anything, to bring it up to modern times. As you've been saying here in some of your presentations, and the league as well, that's not defined right now. Well, let's define it. Let's define and let's put the language in there so that we can get to where we want to be so that the interpretation isn't broad. Here's the language, it's where it is, so we're welcome to language. My question is that once, and we have a long ways to go with this, we have a lot of different opinions, lot of different people want to swing at this. We have new partners that have been amenable to working together and we're very thankful for that, but maybe they don't want to be excluded anymore. It's going to be hard probably to get where we want to be at. My point and my question is that once we get this language in, if we were successful, where does it go from here? Which committee? Or where does where where does the whole picture of it go? Is it the law of the land? Yeah. Yeah.

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: I mean, well, it's gotta be passed, as know, by both chambers, and it's on a form. But, yeah, it would the language we proposed would basically put us back where we were before the Supreme Court decision with those caveats that that was taught. Yeah. That was the question that I wanted. So looking at the the language that you have for us, so am I correct that we're looking at c and d Yep. That if if those are now laws, that would bring us back to what the understanding was before the tap is correct. Correct. And then a and b would be what would be new, which would be called the right to grow food. Correct. Okay. Correct. No. That's exactly right. So so what the the key thing that this language does, if you look at subsection c that senator Plunkett was just talking about, is instead of saying because remember, the the language here is a bylaw under this chapter shall not regulate. And then instead of saying required agricultural practices, we're saying farming. And and that's what was always intended, but given the way the language developed, it became confusing. So instead of saying required ag required agricultural practices, it says farming that meets the minimum threshold criteria in the required agricultural practices rule and is therefore required to comply with the required agricultural practices rule. And then further below, you see under, subsection two a, it defines farming. And farming is defined as it already is in Act two fifty, and as it already is in the required agricultural practices. The reason that both are listed there is there's a word or two, I think it's viticulture, that that are different in the RAP definition of farming and the Act two fifty definition of of farming. So rather than they're they're they're both farming, and so rather than using one version of the other, we just propose using both. Do you mean that, you know, the courts looking at this, they're trying to decide what what they're what a person's doing that court should if it falls under either definition, then it would be farming Yeah. Or will they be playing around? The idea is that if it's defined as farming in either the RIPs or under act two fifty, it's farming, and you can't and you can't zone that activity. And then if you look at I'm sorry. This isn't I didn't wanna put it on the legislature's numbers letterhead, because then it gets confusing sometimes about who proposed it. But the way that we sort of close that loop is if you look at on the next page in subsection 3.1, this this would be amending the RAPs themselves. And just to tighten up the language and to make clear that it's not made clear to any court that's looking at this. You see the new underline is it specifically says that if you meet if you meet these thresholds, you are not subject to municipal zoning bylaws. So I was just trying to kind of close that loop. And when I was talking to mister O'Grady yesterday, he he thinks, and I agree with him, that it would be wise to put in the ten secondtions to the language so the legislation is very clear in that 10 section of exactly what it intended. Sure. So that, you know, that would and that would help a little bit as well. But the idea here is just to to tighten that, making sure it's a loop. If you if you were farming if you're farming and you have to comply with the RIPs, you're not subject to design. And then I don't know if you wanna go through the language specifically. It it's all kind of doing what those themes we talked about,

[Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: and I'm happy to watch I wish we would, and I I know it's more No. No. No. I don't mind. I think it's important.

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: I just didn't wanna take the time. So so We're So as senator Plunkett just pointed under d one, top of the first page, that first paragraph a is protecting your ability to grow plants irrespective of whether you are farming under the RAPs. That would be new. Plants, in our opinion, would not include cannabis, but that probably should be stated more explicitly here even though it's stated in other sections of the law. Subsection b would be adding the poultry exemption, which, again, is is intentionally vague, small backed dietary poultry flock, excluding roosters, but we can I'm sure that will get more discussion. Subsection c is farming, and being clear that the type of farming that is regulated by the agency of agriculture through the required agricultural practices is not subject to municipal zoning. The reason that's broken into two paragraphs is just because it was kind of a run on sentence. The set the other part of that sentence includes farm structures, which the supreme court didn't touch. It couldn't because that was the statute. We continue to regulate farm structures. Supreme court's decision to change that. We're just keeping that as is before it can get into a separate line because it seems a little bit cleaner. So We'll talk about farm structures just a minute. Of course.

[Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: So we had the issue last year with farm structures and on accessories and all of that stuff. Does that help clear any of this stuff? Does that give us any Not more strength of any of

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: in this language, no. It's a very interesting issue. Farm structures are are not regulated by towns. Towns have to have notice of it. They have to come farmers have to comply with the setbacks that a town has unless they request a variance from us. And if they request a variance from us, we have to notify the town, town public, and post it. People can tell us what they think. So we but we have the authority to grant a variance if it meets standards that are in the required agricultural practices. Where it gets inaccessory on farm businesses, their law, towns can regulate access around farm businesses, but not stop them. I mean, under the law, it says, if you have an access around farm business, you can you can do it in a new or existing building. So there is some some built in protection. Where it gets tricky is when they're multiuse buildings. Mhmm. So that I think what happened last year was there was a farm that was used as a as a stage for Right. When they

[Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: brought the public in and played bands and all that.

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: Exactly. So that's where it gets, tricky. I think it makes a lot of sense to to think about how to make that better for for farmers because there's very few buildings that are used only for one purpose ever. So it is it this doesn't address that issue. But it isn't our issue. It's not your issue to address because you don't have a concern about it. It it is A and R's issue at that point in time. That correct? Well, what happens is if you're not farming so farming is exempt from act two fifty and municipal zoning, or it has been. But if you're doing something that extends beyond farming, for having a music concert, that's not farming. Yeah. And so you can do that as part of your accessory on farm business, but that's what what happens is if you build a stage for a concert to have concert, that's no longer farming. So act two fifty can't take jurisdiction,

[Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: and they can regulate that. So so we don't have barn dancers anymore. Right? Well, if you're not making any improvements Yeah.

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: You're okay. But if you're putting in a new bathroom, you might be talking about act two fifty.

[Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I don't know why don't know why that greets on me so much. Maybe it's because one of my senators that's in his area and all of that, that bothered me as much as anything, but it does great on me in a big way. The overlapping laws are so challenging for for some I mean, I think

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: the league was talking about that a little bit too. Like, there's we have these layers that I feel bad for businesses because there's just so many things they have to do. We're just talking about land use. We started talking about employment. We started talking about, you know, there's just there's there's layers of things building safety. Like, there's just multiple layers, and we can never really talk about them all at the same time. It's just too confusing. Right. Well, sorry to get you off. No. No. That's yep. That's fine. So then so down further, you see the subsection a, farming is defined as we just discussed. That's that would be as it's defined currently, and then because we added this right to poultry, we also defined poultry, and poultry is is references our our animal health stat not our our animal, health yeah, our animal health statutes. The meaning that's cited there is just any domesticated bird. So that's the type of poultry that would that would be included, not wild birds, but domesticated birds. There's some interesting issues there, potentially, depending on how you define that. But that's that's a statutory that's the definition that's in statute. So that would be the only change to municipal authority under stat under their current statutory regulations. Like, these are the things they couldn't regulate. This would be the change to to to title 24 and and explaining what they cannot regulate through zoning bylaws. The rest of it would be changing the RAPs, which, obviously, normally, way we do that is go through rule making, but that way, it's very hard. You can't get a a clean package by doing that. So what we are proposing is is doing it this way. You know, I already talked about the little bit where we try to close the circle and say that it's not subject to municipal zoning bylaws, but if you go down to subsection b, you'll see that that's where we propose changing from $2,000 to $5,000. And then in subsection c, this is where you can if you have four four acres of land, you can grow. You can feed on it, but currently, it's defined as for sale. So this is not talking about people who are who are growing food for themselves. This is farming, selling it to other people. We add in donation here because we have some philanthropists who want to donate food to people who need it.

[Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: We're gonna be working on that. We have a

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: group from Allisyn County. We're coming in. And so yeah. So glad to have that in there. Then that part, we just we wanna encourage that in any way we can. The next section is what what we talked about, the four acres of conti the four contiguous acres of livestock numbers that exist now. We're not proposing changing that in any way. But then subsection e is where we talk about the the this is the one to four acres for livestock. So in subsection e, we are saying that if you have livestock and you have a sufficient land base for the appropriate nutrient waste management, then the agency would have the discretion to determine that that is farming of livestock on those areas. And then you also see that consultation requirement with the municipal authority is built into that. The next subsection has nothing to do with municipal zoning at all. This is just about this is about protecting water quality. So this situation is because what we're proposing is there are some things the agency wouldn't regulate, and towns would have the authority to regulate. But as you know, a lot of towns don't have any regulations or bylaws. So in in this instance, we're just saying that if you have if you have livestock on less than one acre, which ordinarily the agency would regulate, or on one to four acres or less than four acres, where we haven't taken authority, but you're causing significant adverse water quality impacts, the agency can step in and apply the RAPs to make sure you're not. So this is about protecting water quality, nothing to do with municipal zoning at all. But just we didn't wanna leave that gap where somebody's dumping all their municipal Yeah. Into their into the water. We couldn't do anything about it. So if you look below that sec sub subsection, subsection f is the schedule f reform that exists now, and we proposed striking it because of our compromise in agreement with the league on the $5,000 threshold being an appropriate one. People will obviously disagree with that. Then the next section is is this is what describes the agricultural practices that were supposed to be exempt. And we and subsection 3.2 there, we just add in that are, again, just to close the loop are not being clear that if you do these things and you're subject to the RIPs, you're not subject to Minnesota zoning bylaws. It was just trying to create a brand new, and that's it. So it's pretty limited statutory and and RIPs changes, but it's all designed to sort of meet those threshold requirements that we're discussing. I know it's all a lot, and, you know, look at it every day, but I think it's a it could work. Good. Okay.

[Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: And the the thing that just concerns me just the the restrictions the continual restrictions on farm young farming. Land is getting less. Our our farmers are just are struggling with climate. It's it's just that they are under a a number of guns, and this is just one more layer that is being put on. So I'm excited that we were able to that you were able to come to an 85% agreement with VOCT. We could just get to 100, I think we Excellent. Can get

[Robert Plunkett (Member)]: Thank you.

[Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: More questions? So Linda, while we have counsel here, are we still 11:00, we're still bare on Tuesday?

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

[Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: So on Tuesday, we have So this committee has got a lot of eyes in the fire. There are some things we have bills on that we're working with you on or others, and there's other things we're just having broad discussions on. One we just talked about, trying to find a path forward to have people who put their hands on the soil no matter what they're growing until it crosses that road into a product of treating them like farmers. We know that's delicate areas, especially when you start talking about federal dollars. We're also starting to talk about and making some waves about protecting farmlands in a way. We are very aware of the amount of primary land that is getting stolen and it is easy to develop on and all. Have had discussions where it has been picked up on Zoom about, well, we're going to protect our lands, that's what we're going do. But just across there, across the fence, we have a capture land that's no longer being used. You want to develop that, then you can develop that land all that you want or within reason because it does two things. One is it protects our farmland. The other is that it probably makes land that's less valuable to a farmer because it's just sitting there and there's no more use for it anymore. It allows that land to become valuable again because now it's going to be competed for as far as the better part of that secondary land, pasture land, is going to be starting to be used to develop, whether it's solar fields or houses or anything like that. We have solar people coming out on Monday that have been aware of where we're starting, just making a stand on protecting farmland. Are you interested after or listening in on that conversation and have any comment after? On Tuesday, we have time at 11:00 or anything like that.

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: So two thoughts. One is we don't I I can't articulate a position for you yet. We don't need Right. But we could talk about the issues. But we also have Ari Rockland Miller in our office is in charge of protecting primag soil within the systems that exist, and that's both Act two fifty and the Act two forty eight, the PUC process. So it might help you to understand what we do now. And so he could come in and explain that. I'm happy to talk to you about it.

[Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I think Well, I guess I'm just basically saying that we have some time at 11:00, or at the very least, I think that you folks, like you do, should listen into this discussion and see where this committee's at as far as as we've kind of fleshed this thing out. So, yeah. It's an important topic,

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: and we get a lot of questions about it. I it's I I don't it's it's a really tricky area Yeah. When you're calculating competing attacks. These guys are beasts. I can't slow them down.

[Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: No. I know. They're going after.

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: I'm not to get I know. Not to. What I have, and I there's something I would love

[Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: to do, but I don't

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: have permission to, know, think about what I wanna do. So

[Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: we're gonna have a discussion on Tuesday, and I would I would I would just put it out there that there might be some stuff in there that you folks wanna hear and give us counsel on and make us aware of the hurdles that we're facing.

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: I appreciate it. We'll definitely listen to it either then or when we can, and I might either me or Ari Rocklabeller, I'll try to have them over. I just had to look ahead with my schedule. K. But, yeah, thank you. Appreciate it, and

[Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: it is an important topic. Yeah.

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

[Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I apologize. I gotta take just a five minute break. And Thank you

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: all so much. Thank you. Doctor. Sorry. We're running over a little bit, but we'll