Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Good

[Speaker 1]: morning. It's Wednesday, February 4. We are actually, no. Yeah. Okay. No, okay. Was looking at the yeah. Looks like the it's February 4. We're gonna spend some time on our miscellaneous bill. We're gonna be going through receptions one through three. I really thought it was important that we have our the attorney for the HCAG, Steve Collier, just go down through what we're trying to accomplish with the language. And I think, Senator Major, you had something you wanted to say as well.

[Speaker 2]: Or just, we're so hyped, and if I give a rap, please don't take don't take it personally for for any any biotestimate. The other the other thing is we we may, and this is for something in the future, The drought has been the step state for our to bring some testimony for that as well. So I I don't want anyone to be, amended if I act like sergeant Bombs. When that happens.

[Speaker 1]: Okay. So, attorney Calley, floor is yours. Great.

[Speaker 0]: Well, good morning, senators. Thanks so much for having me. Steve Collamore, chief executive director. I'm gonna try to give a brief history of what we've got. Also, try to talk about where we where there's agreement and where there's differences. And just everyone knows, this all came about this discussion because of the supreme court's opinion back in May. And when that happened, we were very concerned. We immediately tried to work with the legislature to restore the exemption, but there were concerns about that. And there was some concerns, substantive concerns about the way the system worked and whether it worked. So we weren't able to do that quickly. So we immediately set to trying to build a consensus among all the interested stakeholders and also trying to evaluate objectively the system that was in a place and and how well it worked. And so in in my opinion, the consensus has been unbelievable. Even though we're not exactly on the same page, everyone, I think, recognizes the importance of this issue who's in this room. Everyone has engaged. Everyone has really put their best minds to figuring out how to move forward. And the reality is we are the reality is if any of the proposals passed, it probably would be okay, but there are some important differences. And I say it probably would be okay because everyone in this room believes that farming would primarily be exempt from zoning and that that the exemption should be restored. So that's to me, that's fantastic because that is the key reason that we're, and we're talking about some some differences on the margins that are not unimportant. But broadly speaking, everyone agrees that farming is important. Everyone agrees that farming is regulated. Everyone agrees that farmers should be re regulated consistently throughout the state. So to me, that's a win, but there are some small differences. So I'll try to explain why why we came to the differences that we have. When we looked objectively at the system as as it existed, I'd say we found two primary gaps in that system. It worked pretty well. No system's gonna be perfect. It mostly worked, but there were a couple of issues. And I think the first one was the reason that the eligibility criteria so everyone knows in order to be protected from municipal zoning, you have to be covered by the RAP. So there were some basic eligibility criteria you had to meet. The reason that was so important was because if you weren't eligible for the RAPs, then you weren't protected from zoning. So it really mattered whether you had $2,000 or whether you had four acres because otherwise, there was no protection at all. So part of our grappling and decision has always been, we don't wanna go too big, know, from the eligibility criteria, and because we don't wanna stop anyone from being able to grow food. So we've talked about that, and so why does it have to be why does it have to be subject to the RAPs to be able to grow food? Why do you need to be subject to the RAPs that have a right to go and argue? You don't. So in looking at that eligibility criteria and to try because there were concerns in the league about the $2,000 threshold. There were concerns that that was not accommodating densely populated areas, not taking everything into into effect. So we thought, well, you don't need to have you don't need to be eligible for the RAP to be farming to still have some protections. So we thought, why don't we just make it? And we talked to the league about this, and later talked to all the farm groups about this. Why why can't everyone have a right to grow food? Happily, everyone agrees. So that takes away a lot of the concern about whether or not you are, quote unquote, farming subject to the RAPs if you have a right to grow food. And we wanted to go a little further than that because growing a plant in a garden is one thing, but also having poultry, a lot of people can do in very small areas, and that can also be a really important way to be able to grow your own food. So having backyard chickens, having meat and eggs can really help people that like to do it, and also, it can really help their family budget and can be very helpful. So that, like, because everyone in this room agrees that everybody should be able to do that, if the legislature agrees, then those things are protected regardless of your size, as long as you've got a backyard to have a small backyard flock. As long as you have a place to grow food, you can do that. So then if you if you do that, then for at least from our perspective, the eligibility criterion are not quite as important because you're protecting those fundamental rights to do it. So then, the next gap that we found in our evaluation was land. So, as you all know, the basic criterion was you need four contiguous acres to be covered by the RITs. That was really the design However, you could also meet the criterion if you had $2,000 in average annual sales of agricultural products or if you filed a schedule f. There's no land based requirement of the country, and it normally was fine. It mostly doesn't apply, but I've shared with you all the example of we have goats in a basement in a downtown area on a tenth of an acre, and technically, they can make the $2,000 requirement, but there was no way for us to regulate those goats in the basement on the tenth of an acre. There's no way to apply the RIPs, but there was also nothing in the RIPs that prohibited it. So when talking with the town, you know, their concern, obviously, is density and neighbors, and, you know, being able to have everyone coexist peacefully, it from our perspective, it's not reasonable to say that you can have zero land and still have livestock. So, you know, we all know about the ducks in Essex. We were fine with ducks in Essex. They they weren't the ducks weren't actually the problem in our opinion. It was cannabis, which not saying that's right or wrong, but I think that was what was really driving that that issue. But poultry in the backyard, you can manage that, and he was in our in our opinion. But what if you put 50 pigs You know, if you put 50 pigs on that half acre plot, and and there's nothing that would bar that under the law that existed before that, as long as you could comply with the RIP. So that would mean you have to meet setbacks, and you have to make sure that your waste is not going to the neighbor's property, but if you had the 50 pigs there, and you exported all your waste, arguably, you you could do that. That, in talking with the town and trying to build consensus, it didn't feel reasonable us to take the position that you can have livestock wherever you want, no matter whether you have the land to do it. And to take it even to its logical extreme, why need a half an acre? Why not have two pigs on a porch? And you can, you know, you can sell your bacon to the neighbor for $50, file a schedule f income tax return, and suddenly, you've got a you're farming on your porch with two pigs, and town can't regulate you, and we do. I mean, that might work if we have the ability to regulate two pigs on a porch. We don't. There's there's no way to do that. We we regulate farming. We regulate land use. We can't regulate two pigs on a porch. I'm using, obviously, an extreme example, but still, looking at the structure, it seemed to us reasonable that if we're going to regulate livestock, you've gotta have an adequate land base to do it. The prior standard was four acres, unless you met another threshold, but we didn't wanna go that big, because four acres is quite a lot of land, and you can have livestock on less than four acres. But we also were trying to be sensitive to the density issues that obviously, if you've got if you're talking about a development on a quarter acre or a subdivision, that's a very different farming reality than if you're, you know, in Northeast Kingdom with no neighbors. So that that was what we looked at objectively. We saw some issues with the system that that we probably couldn't objectively depend on. I don't think we can come in here and tell every committee of this building that has an interest in this that there's no problem with the 50 pigs on our border right here. So that that's what we were trying to do is say, in the overarching principle is, if you have land in Vermont, and you can reasonably and responsibly farm it, we want you to be able to. And so that's what we tried to build. And and right now, if you've got four acres so under our proposal, if you've got four acres and you're either growing food or you have livestock at a certain amount, you're covered. If you're between one and four acres and you have a enough land for the livestock you want, you're If you have $5,000 in and less than four acres, you're covered. If you just wanna grow food and don't wanna supply, you're covered. If you wanna have poultry, you're covered. So the the only gap that we really see is on less than an acre if you wanna have livestock, and that is something that we we think is reasonable to give a town pounds a say because on less than an acre, livestock is not necessarily easy to to manage. Not impossible. You can have livestock in less than a distance. But to try to build compromise with the league and with the towns, we thought that was a reasonable line. So, you know, but that said, the agreement is much broader. Everybody in this room agrees that farming should be regulated by the agency of agriculture in the system standards throughout the state. The league's league's position is in, you know, in tier one areas where the the map has been approved and where they have regulation and where they need to build housing, where they and where they need to be able to, you know, regulate their community in those limited areas, and they are limited, not insignificant, but limited, they wanna be able to zone farming. I guess it's it's a reasonable position. Don't have a problem with their position. I guess what I would what I think the league maybe should explain is why. Why is it needed? If you have if a farmer has been there forever and you have 10 acres, you happen to be in a plant growth area that's covered by tier one acres, why can't that farm be subject to the same regulations as every other farm in the state? They've never had the towns have never had the authority to regulate agriculture. It's worked. Why do you need this? I'm not saying that their reasons aren't legitimate, but when we're talking we're not talking about you can have livestock anywhere. We're talking about you need land, enough land. And so if if you were to adopt a standard, towns are protected, but you can't just have livestock wherever you want. But but you can they can regulate under an acre. We have to decide between one and four. So where is the I guess the question from my perspective is, where is the gap in the spring work where towns are somehow not able to fairly regulate? Why do they need to regulate farms any differently in these land development areas? I mean, the reality is farms are probably gonna get pushed out of those areas. This property because of land prices will increase, and and farms will often go out. But we have some well, actually, pretty large and very successful produce farms in very densely populated areas right now, and they and they have a huge customer base. I mean, there's some places in Chitkin County that have customers, you know, that feed a lot of Vermonters on some pig farms, and why do those farms need to be regulated any differently than they currently are? Some of them are pretty sizable. They're they're sandwiched in. They were there first, but now they're sandwiched in. Why does that need to to change? And then I think on the the farming group side, totally understand their perspective. They wanna go back to where it was. Understand that. It's totally in a position. But then the question is, what about livestock? Is should there be any different regulation of livestock, or should you be able to have livestock regardless of whether you have the land, property management? And I think, to me, those are the only sort of differences that exist. All of us are very aligned, but it's the league wants some extra authority in limited areas, and the foreign groups wanna go back to where we were, and all that's legitimate, but was where we were the best place to be, I guess, is the question. So does that make sense?

[Speaker 1]: Well, think it does. I think it's very helpful to lead off the discussion as far as the folks that are in the room, and very appreciative. Any questions from the sound of the show? What if

[Speaker 3]: you just call them Pets?

[Speaker 0]: Here's the thing. The towns having a right to regulate doesn't mean they have. So if a lot of towns don't have zoning, and so they they if you don't have zoning under an acre, people are going to be able to do what they what they want. Now In the language we suggest to protect water quality, we did suggest that if if somebody has less than an acre or between one and four, but we haven't determined that they're farming, and there aren't any zoning regulations to deal with it that the agency could come in to regulate to protect water quality. We are trying to see some testimony from a senator, probably senator Morley, on a situation that they

[Speaker 1]: have in Orleans where there are some pigs in the center of town. And it's going to really I don't wanna say test, but it's going to bring in a broader discussion about how this is all how this all works. So we are gonna we are going to have a lot of what you've just said in real world stuff. And I don't know that it's contents of what the bill might be, the language of the film, but it's been an ongoing this problem or problem depending on who you talk to. The town believes it's a problem. Other people don't believe it's a problem, so we are going to see we are gonna get a chance to talk about that. Sergeant Rutland.

[Speaker 3]: Yeah. So can you talk to us a little bit? There's there's a lot of language in there to make clear that this is a clarification of the statute that that was interpreted. Can you tell us about the importance of that and how adding the changes to how it was before could impact that? You mean

[Speaker 0]: the intent section? Yes. So I think it's always a good idea to be clear about the intent. The language if the language is clear enough, and maybe the intent section doesn't matter, given the history in this case, then I think it's helpful for a court. I mean, if I was a court sitting on if I was a judge trying to figure out what the legislature meant, and the legislature's telling me, I'd find that to be helpful. Yeah. I think the wording of that is can be does not need to be in any way aggressive. Yeah. Yeah. It can certainly it can simply say, you know, there was a misunderstanding or whatever. It doesn't need to be pointed, but I think it's helpful to explain that municipalities shouldn't be selling farms if they need to report next to the IRPs. Fair enough.

[Speaker 1]: Anyone else? Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. For leading us off with that. Are we gonna go any order that I've got it? Jake, lead not? Okay.

[Speaker 4]: Thanks. Alright. Ready to go here. So for the record, Jake Claro, the farm to plate director at the Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund. I don't

[Speaker 3]: know if you want to share my screen.

[Speaker 1]: All of you do a lot better job of that than I would.

[Speaker 4]: Know it always feels like that got quite as well. Let

[Speaker 1]: me there, and then I'll make the hero. Yeah. Alright. Can somebody push that okay button right there on that chain right there? Yeah.

[Speaker 4]: You do it there? Oh, okay.

[Speaker 5]: I just not know that was on

[Speaker 4]: the screen. So I just want to give you all a little bit of framing for where the Farm Coalition is coming from, and also where I intersect with this issue. I have some past history, and so yeah, we'll give just a kind of a quick overview of how we, sort of how we think we got here, and then give some direct comparisons of the proposed language that the Farm Coalition has put forward and where that aligns and where there are differences with the agency, just to get into the real specific language of it. So, back in 1994, there was the A Handbook for Local Action. Actually, was a product of the Agency of Agriculture, and this was, at the time, the first sort of like planning guide for agriculture in the state, and it talked a lot about these issues of municipal exemptions, of organizing town, like how to organize for your town plan, and do all sorts of other things around planning for agriculture. It was very popular at the time, but limited run, and so when it went out of print, people kind of were asking, like, can I access this? This is a really great resource. So, in 2014, we actually updated this document, and we created, there was five modules, so we kind of broke it into smaller parts, and one of them was actually local regulatory context. So that's where I was involved in that project, working with town planners, with the agency, and others to update this resource. And what I think is interesting about this document in 1994 is that it's very clear that in articulating the confusion around where did municipal regulation apply, where is agriculture exempt, and it makes clear that the municipal exemption was created in order to protect farmers from unreasonable local regulation that threatens the viability of agriculture, and this was actually before the formal AAPs at the time were released, so there was just the voluntary AAPs that were defined in 1987. So kind of an interesting context of when this came out, and interpretation of the AAPs were not in this document as they understood to be just about water quality. This was about agricultural practices and just the only of agriculture in general. Then another interesting note in this document in 'ninety four is that it notes that the extent of the exemption was hotly debated at that time. So, did the legislature intend for all activities to be exempt, or were there kind of more narrowed restrictions? And at that time, in 'ninety two, the Memorial Superior Court actually ruled on this question, and so in that ruling, it said Section 4,495 preempts any municipal zoning regulation which confines or keeps within limits accepted agricultural practices, and that decision was not appealed by the Supreme Court, or to the Supreme Court, rather. This is not, we're not here to relitigate the Supreme Court decision, but I think just to note that this kind of, this interpretation, this understanding had been long established, and so a lot of the groups that are part of this Farm Coalition are acting under, like this was the reality that people were operating under, and this is why the Supreme Court decision was such a surprise in terms of how it interpreted the RAPs and what they applied to. And just to kind of further emphasize this, in the planning document that we updated in 2014, in the municipal regulation section and the exceptions for AAPs, the concern in the gray area at that time was not whether municipalities could regulate agricultural activities, it was more about can they regulate accessory on farm business activities, which were, at that time, referred to as agroperinearial activities. So there was even, in 2014, kind of an assumption of, like, we're not talking about needing to clarify whether exemptions apply to agricultural activities as defined by the RIPs, but more so, like, we need to clarify what's happening with excess around farm businesses, which there's been legislation that does address that. The highlighted section here is just to note that the RAPs don't just talk about water quality related activities, it was also talking about activities related to the storage, preparation, sale of agricultural products. So that's where we're coming from as a group, it's been a longstanding interpretation and way that farms have kind of understood this, and even the way that town planners, regional planners, you know, the sort of historical context that they've grown into this issue, and that this was obviously, as we all know, very much a surprise when the Supreme Court made their decision. So not to sound

[Speaker 1]: over simplistic, and I don't want to do that, and I don't want to minimize anyone's concern, and I'm certainly Everybody's in here to express how this is causing them harm. In your own words, just as short as Senator Major is prone to say once in a while, Reader's Digest version. In your own words, what did this ruling do to you? Mean, what did it do? And just you said a lot of it, but drill into it. What did this ruling do to you? And so I'll let you go. Yeah.

[Speaker 4]: Yeah. Cliff Cliff's notes version. I think that this the the ruling makes the regulatory world for farms, which I'm I'm an advocate for, much more difficult to interpret and exposes them to more risk for how they run their business.

[Speaker 1]: Okay. That's correct. That should be correct.

[Speaker 4]: So yeah, now getting into the details here and reinforce some of the messages that Steve was talking about, there is a lot of alignment here, so really, we want to try to narrow in on what are the key issues that still need to be worked out, so when you compare and contrast the language that the coalition has submitted and that is in the miscellaneous bill now here in the Senate. So we both have this right to grow food that covers cultivation, essentially, of plants. So that language, aside from the coalition proposing this as the right to grow food, the miscellaneous bill and the agency language does not include that kind of preamble, in essence, but the language is identical there. So we're good with that, as Steve was saying. Where we start to see the difference is that is when you go to the next element, where the agencies proposed raising being a small, packer poultry blocks, the coalition would like to see just broad coverage for all types of livestock. We're imagining situations where people might have two goats. So what's the difference between having a backyard poultry block and having two goats? We think that should be protected for people to have that. With no land restriction at all. Well, we'll get, yeah, so that is where there's also a difference in this, whereas in the agency language, they place this discretion to the Secretary of Agriculture in the RIPs. We're proposing to put this discretion directly into Title 24 here, and in this right to grow food for live for livestock. So set so that the language that we proposed says the secretary secretary of agriculture has the discretion to determine whether the plant base is adequate for managing the number inside the flying stock in compliance with the RFPs, and then however, methane spallies may pass ordinances that regulate the presence of roosters within areas of, primarily for residential use. So we are open to placing restrictions on what is allowable in terms of raising livestock, but we would like that to be established not just in this language for poultry, but for potentially all types. And so that's the main, I think that's the main difference in how we're approaching this livestock issue from what the agency has proposed and what's in the current bill language here in the Senate, and I think the other coalition members can talk more about about this issue as well as to why. And yeah. So that's What would be the trigger for a violation?

[Speaker 1]: Have you do have you thought I know you've not again, not a gotcha or anything like that. Where's the trigger to where, okay, this isn't working? I

[Speaker 4]: mean, it would it's similar to what would be the trigger in the proposed language as it exists in the RIPs. It's like, there'd have to be Is it a municipal complaint that then the agency, the secretary, makes a decision around as to whether or not it should fall under the RIPs or that the municipality has the right to go ahead and regulate as they wish. I think that's like it seems like the main trigger would be complaint oriented in some areas, and I think, as well as we'll get into, I think the Farm Coalition is understanding that the league's position around potentially keeping this within, applying it rather to a place, like where is this happening, rather than sort of a broad based, like, discretion could lie with the agency, it could lie with the municipality. So we are open to discussion around the 1A, restricting this type of regulation to tier 1A areas, but we want to know that there are protections still there as to, you know, towns can't say prohibit the activity, but they may regulate in certain ways. And our understanding too, based on past testimony from the league and in conversations too is that the concerns are more around, say, like, regulation of safety and and potential lighting, traffic, noise issues, rather than the actual having animals on the property. So that's where we're coming from, and also in our understanding of conversations with the lead. But I think there's still a lot. I think this is, as Steve also noted, I think Livestock still is the area where there's more to really understand the details. And I don't think we have all of that figured out quite And

[Speaker 2]: and, Steve, if you could kinda help me with this as well. And I'm I'm always when you have issues like this, I'm always looking, has someone else solved this problem? Have you looked at other states and, particularly rural states that have something similar and what they have done?

[Speaker 0]: Do you like me to state call your agency of agriculture? So I don't have a definitive answer. Are a lot of states that have done the same kinds of things where they exempt municipal zoning regulations, but they do it in a lot of different ways. There's a lot of county government in different states too, and the model really doesn't have that. So there I don't think there's a standard consensus, but there is a difference between states that do what we do, which is a lot, but not all, and then states that don't and just allow something out of harming.

[Speaker 1]: And I think that there's a lot of states out there that don't really consider them to be ag states, and it might not be as important to them than So what it is to I can see where it would be different depending on what the state classifies themselves as and whether they're in that way because of whether they are ag or what it so yeah.

[Speaker 2]: Sure. Like, you know, your point, like Iowa. Right. You know, what's Iowa doing? Right. And because they have larger cities there, they're happy to be done. Right. What are they doing in Des Moines?

[Speaker 0]: I have looked for other models, and I I didn't find anything that seemed easier than just tweaking what we have. In part, you know, we do have that fifty five, six year history from act two fifty from starting in 1970 and exempting ag. So we have this longstanding tradition of not having municipalities regulate agriculture. So from our perspective, it seemed like the system was fine, and trying to build a consensus and tweaking the parameters to get everybody on board was kind

[Speaker 1]: of the way to go.

[Speaker 4]: Yeah, think there's movement to address this in more populated areas nationally. You see it under the context of urban agriculture, and there have been resources produced that try to address how to regulate urban agriculture or guides to doing that, and that's where you see this kind of show up in states larger than ours. So just continuing, again, we're totally aligned around the definition of farming. We, so that's all identical. There's a slight difference here in the reference to the poultry definition because we use the broad we're applying a broad livestock exception and not specific to poultry. We both have the language or the construction of farm structures, so all of that's the same within Title 24 in what's been proposed. So a lot of alignment there. There's that one difference in how to address livestock. Where the difference is mainly arrived is then in the suggested proposed changes to the RAPs. And, you know, I think the the Farm Coalition's position here is that we're we are certainly open to the notion that there might be technical changes required if we make certain changes to Title 24, making sure that's reflected in the RIPs. Think where we start to push back a little bit is in making what we think are actually more substantive changes that aren't necessarily necessary to addressing the exemption issue, and so this is where, you know, for instance, changing the income threshold from 2 to 5,000, Yeah. This this feels more substantive in terms of who it could potentially impact. We've had conversations with business planners, technical assistant providers who work with farms to sit and and there's not a consensus as to whether this increase is makes sense or not. And so that's also we just feel like it's something that deserves more more analysis, more time, and and feels like a separate kind of issue of of examining the RIPs and modernizing, updating them as needed, but that this change is not does does not fundamentally impact, I think, the issue of of the exemptions, addressing this clarity around exemptions. And and in conversations with the league too, we don't think that this is, like, a make or break kind of issue with with them either because of their focus on tier one a is, like, more of where they'd like

[Speaker 0]: to

[Speaker 4]: see authority provided. So that's one area where we do have differences, and we feel like represents a change of a different type and involves should involve a different kind of process to examine whether or not this this threshold should be increased to that level.

[Speaker 1]: So just to flesh that out a little bit, and I will just tell all of you that are here to testify today, which we're very grateful, there's a lot of gonna be the same questions, you know, where we're at as you come forward. But just to flush this two to five thousand out, I mean, I know as far as in the Senate and from time to time, we go on fee schedules and we can raise fees because of inflation and all of that stuff. We haven't touched that $2,000 number for for quite a long time. We're very respectful of that small amount because we've been known to fight or to reduce fees of low as $300 to somebody just trying to get in because they're too high. But shouldn't that be just shouldn't it change just in times a little bit because of what inflation is? That same $2,000 isn't the same amount of dollars as what it was when it was first put in place, which was, what, quite a few years ago, fifteen years ago, or whatever? '4. 'ninety four?

[Speaker 4]: Yeah, so I think that Farm Coalition is not necessarily saying, Don't ever increase this amount. I think we're saying, on what basis is the increase being made, and we don't think right now that there's a full justification to say 5,000 is the number. Yeah. So, yeah, I think that's where we are at, and there's eligibility implications to changing this. It also would change the regulatory status of farms. So there's also just downstream impacts to those who are being regulated that you know, we don't wanna take a change like this lightly. And, you know, and and frankly too, the USDA, you know, considers a farm to be a thousand dollars. So federally, there's a lower threshold than what we're applying here in the state. So and and there's there's valid criticism to that

[Speaker 1]: too. Yeah.

[Speaker 4]: But, you know, so there's, I think, a lot of factors here that we just think need more consideration before the change. But you didn't have a suggestion of what the amount should be or how we should counter it. Our suggestion is to keep it at 2,000 right now. Yeah. That. Yeah. That would be it. You Good work. I like minded. Yeah. So Yes. I I just senator Collamore's you said 94? I believe. I could be wrong. I think it was $20.16. Oh, yeah. The last update. Yeah. Right. The last update.

[Speaker 2]: Well, before that. Yeah. That's what I was gonna say. So it it had been the same thing.

[Speaker 4]: I there

[Speaker 2]: has to be some quantitative way that we can figure this out, a a number. I don't know what that that is.

[Speaker 1]: And I think you're gonna get, sorry, Senator Major, on you, but I think you're gonna get to that, I think we're gonna get that number swirling around because I do believe that the league was talking about 10,000, and then negotiation got down to 5,000. So I think that that is going to swirl some as far as where that number is, and we certainly respect that you want to keep it at 2,000 and all of that. Yeah.

[Speaker 4]: Won't get kind of into the nitty gritty of this.

[Speaker 1]: Yeah, we appreciate that. As I before, you watch out,

[Speaker 2]: don't you?

[Speaker 4]: But I would just say that, so there's additional proposed changes where right now the current subsection or subsection E of the REPs, the changes being suggested by the agency in the miscellaneous bill would basically break that into two parts, now E and F, and we find the reading of that to be difficult to interpret. Also, a little confusing around less than one, between one and four, whereas the section before it says at least one and less than four, so just consistency of language that we find are areas where things can be misinterpreted, where it's confusing potentially for farms, and may be difficult to apply in practice. I think there's still probably conversation, though, around how to deal in language around livestock under four acres. So it's not to say that we're lying to that fact, it's just what's proposed here we find to be perhaps more complex and complicated than what it maybe can be in the end. So we're suggesting no change to that. The the current language would still apply for livestock farms less than four acres, where the secretary would still have this ability to make a determination about adverse water quality impacts. And then finally, the the other thing is that we are suggesting to keep the scalable app element in the the REPs. We don't think that people are just like, we don't think that this is a a backdoor for people to sort of gain farm status and evade exemptions. You have to In order to file a Schedule F, you're gonna have to be tracking your expenses income with the intent to make a profit. People don't lightly file a Schedule F. Probably a lot of farm business planners will tell you that there's probably a lot of farms that they work with that aren't farming. We just again, is another thing. Like, at this time, we don't think that this is a necessary change that really alters the issue of of the exact the municipal exemption issue and kind of focusing it around livestock or tier one a as, like, the primary areas that need to be, figured out. So, this would just be, yeah, another change that we think is not germane at this time. It should just remain.

[Speaker 1]: For the committees just for the committees, I've done this. I filed a schedule app, and I made sure my insurance was my insurance was a little bit higher and all of that stuff. There is a little bit of extra work to it, but it certainly For me, for what I was doing, and doesn't make it mean that that is the standard of how everyone does it, but it was a little bit of work, but I didn't really find it was burdensome. But, I'm not the standard for the way it was the system. I see. Thank you. Okay. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So it seems to me that one way to react to the Taft decision, the Taft Street decision, what I always call it, would be to effect change in Title 24. The other way is to somehow open up the RAPs again and do it that way. Am I kind of understanding the two routes that are possible here?

[Speaker 4]: I would just Steve might

[Speaker 3]: have a different interpretation.

[Speaker 4]: I would say that the Farm Coalition's position here is that the pathway should be Title 24. It's focused there, and because that's also the closest title that municipalities fundamentally care about, that let's let's clarify and be, you know, as unambiguous as we can in what we update for 10/2024. And if, again, if there are, you know, technical corrections that need to be then be made in the RAPs, so so be it. But we don't want to turn our attention to the RAPs as part of this process to to start and potentially open that up in a larger manner, which brings other voices, stakeholders, input, and change that, again, is impact going potential regulatory status of farms or make changes for them in ways that there's not a public process for them to have input into. So it sounds like the answer was yes. Yeah, so we We've got folks

[Speaker 0]: to be titled.

[Speaker 1]: And and maybe the agency has a different interpretation, but do you

[Speaker 0]: want me to please? So there's no question that title 24 needs to be amended to accomplish what we're trying to do. The reason we proposed amending the RAPs as well was to do it all in one task move and to get consensus about exactly what we want to do. If you just amend title 24 and ask us to go back to rulemaking, then nothing is defined. And so rather than opening up that uncertainty, what we propose is a package deal, and we're trying to keep it as few as changes as possible to, frankly, make it as simple as possible for both the people who are regulated and for everyone who's talking about changes. So it could be done only through Title 24, but to do it precisely through Title 24, it would need more language than is traditionally there to explain the exemption, and then the RAPs would also be inaccurate. So we have to we could address that too, but it but it so there are multiple ways, but we thought this was let's get everybody on the same page Mhmm. Presented as a package. We're not talking about opening up the RIPs to go through all the other requirements. This is just about the zoning exemption.

[Speaker 4]: Okay. And, yeah, and I think on that point, in terms of the points that apply to the zoning exemption, we don't think the income threshold, the Schedule F, are germane to that. Maybe that Section E would be because it deals with livestock under your Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Well,

[Speaker 1]: Jake, thank you. Yep. And we have on the list, as we're going down through, Josh Hanford. Is everybody good with us following that list the way it is? Okay. Also, just, again, we're gonna keep on going over a lot of the same subjects. I do not want anyone not to get out with what they wanna say even if we're still hearing the same stuff. It's very important to us that everybody get the way to say it the way they wanna say it. So

[Speaker 3]: Sex. You

[Speaker 1]: need to choose one. Yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker 4]: Please help me. The record, dropped the anchor,

[Speaker 3]: director of intergovernmental relations with the cities and towns, joined by Samantha Sheehan here today, who's the municipal policy advocacy special. I'm gonna be fairly brief and high level. I know you got a bunch of things, and and Samantha's gonna sort of follow-up on a few questions we've heard. But just wanna thank you for having us back and and comparing from all the other interested groups together here today. That's important. As you know, VLCT represents all 251 municipalities in the state. They're members by choice, and they value our services, our resources, and advocacy that VLCT provides to them regardless of their size, their urban versus rural nature. Most of our members, 73%, have populations below 2,500 and include foreign communities. We appreciate the work that the Agency of Agricultural Food and Markets has done to try and reach consensus with municipalities. We also appreciate the discussions we've had with a wide range of farm groups. We each have real interests at state regarding the outcome of this bill. We each acted in good faith to reach consensus and compromise in our positions. The LCT believes that our proposal, not the one we're discussing today in the Senate, Minnesota's Ag Bill, to our proposal which would exempt agricultural activity from municipal regulation, except for an Act two fifty exempt areas, will be easier to understand, easier to enforce, will have less impact on farming activity, and maybe most importantly does not require an opening up the RIPs. We would instead propose adding farms to the list of limitations on municipal bylaws in '24 BSA 4413 to not have the effect of interfering with intended functional use. Just like the current law regulates municipal regulations on hospitals, churches, schools, emergency shelters, and a number of other facilities and institutions that are already in municipal statute that says you can't interfere with the functional use of those. This would ensure that even in the densest part of the state, the cities with tier one areas, municipalities could not prevent farming. Like, that that full stop. But in these areas with intense mixed uses, municipalities can regulate safety, public health, and competing public infrastructure uses. That's what we're talking about. We believe the agency proposal attempts to address these same issues by removing wraps from farms below one acre with livestock and for farms between one and four acres with livestock at discretion of the secretary. The agency proposal also removes their $2,000 in farm sales trigger. If you're below those acreages, it would raise that $5,000 for other practical reasons. Our proposal is different. You've heard that we proposed $10,000 and negotiated to 5. That was in response to their proposal. The reality is our proposal is completely different. Municipalities are not concerned if you make a thousand dollars or a $100,000 off your agricultural business, and we're not concerned if your farm is one acres or a thousand acres. We don't wanna regulate farm. That that's what our proposal does. But we need to have the ability to assist it consistently apply land use regulations. So all businesses and property owners living in areas that are so dense and so favored for growth and development that the state of Vermont has decided to remove Act two fifty regulations and said, Grow here. As I said before, without the state implementing land use regulations in these areas, who but the municipality will call the balls and strikes? Without this responsibility at the municipal level, do we want our courts deciding all these issues? That's really the question we present you. If it's not the state, if it's not the municipality, it's gonna be the courts. And so take you back to the TAP's decision, that was the courts from a neighbor. But we are also open to protect the right to grow food, and to codify that in title 24 by preventing municipalities from adopt adopting zoning that will prohibit their right to grow fruits and vegetables. We can't support moving the long standing, and I mean by long standing, I mean centuries old, Right? The municipalities have ordinances to manage animals, livestock, domesticated birds. Those have been around for centuries. Municipalities across Vermont already regulate, and we think quite well without major incident, backyard chicken coops, for example, we've talked a lot about today. Back to the town corner space in the city of Essex, that was determined to be a farm under the old understanding of RAPs, and their RAPs, what what they regulate, and therefore, the municipality cannot enforce its own city ordinances on backyard poultry operations on that property. Can we regulate backyard chicken operations? It's literally one of the most common agriculture related questions that municipal attorneys get in here at this point? And the current answer is yes, unless the operation is considered a farm under wraps. More often than not, this type of regulation merely requires fencing and other protections for neighbors. Think leash laws for for dogs. Not all animals fall under municipal ordinances. Not that towns are prohibiting them. In fact, you can raise chickens in the city of Burlington based on a minimum square feet of the pen or coop and if they're secured at night. We believe that's been around since 1918. The city of Essex Junction also allows up to six hens in even its densest residential zones. So this issue of small livestock, small backyard chickens in municipalities, we think is looking for a problem. It's been in existence for centuries, and it's been managed because it's a health and safety issue. You can't have animals running at large. You can't have disease spread. It's a municipal right to have those ordinances to control those issues, and have been in Vermont, and there's plenty of examples of people with backyard agriculture that are under these existing ordinances doing quite well. So I said I was gonna be brief. So let me close by saying again, we appreciate that the agency proposal attempts to address the common concerns that we all have as a result of the cap corners, but we continue to believe our proposal offers more consistency to the farming community and municipalities, more certainty to agriculture businesses looking to invest throughout Vermont. They know what the rules are in the places they wanna spend a lot of money on investment. If it's in a city that's on a half acre lot that they wanna use the water and sewer, they wanna understand the fire and police protection and

[Speaker 4]: the the

[Speaker 3]: fiber that comes to their lot, there's big investments involved. They need to know that the laws, the land use laws are being enforced fairly, and they can understand them before they go and invest that money in a counter report case from their neighbor. And there's less risk of creating even more state regulations in an attempt to address an unproven fear that municipalities wanna regulate farmland. The fact is we don't, and that's why our proposal literally exempted in 98% of the state outright, and then says in the 2% of the state, we're gonna prohibit the ability for municipalities to functionally interfere with that right to farm or add agriculture just like we do in churches and hospitals and schools, but we have to enforce safety issues. We have to enforce egress issues. And so that's where our proposal is dramatically different. Our proposal isn't anything about regulating farming and fat. And so we think it presents a clear, safer way for folks to understand how they can farm even even in the most dense areas. You know, and I I I couple of things we wanna address, some questions that came up. You know, when we look and do research, we look, you know, AI and others. There isn't one municipality that prevents chickens, the backyard chickens, Vermont. We know that farmers markets, the most successful ones, are in the densest cities in the state. We know that there are examples of other farm operations in areas where folks are concerned about tier 1A coming to be and having Act two fifty exemption. Well, fortunately, there's a process in that tier 1A mapping for the agency to comment on the areas that are being proposed to be included and could be excluded farm properties from those areas. Samantha had a couple, because a couple of questions came out about other states that have complete agriculture exemptions, and there's some interesting numbers and research out there.

[Speaker 1]: Tell us who are you. I know he's Yeah.

[Speaker 5]: The man fishy, I'm a municipal policy and advocacy specialist for the Vermont, New York City and Towns. Happy to be back today.

[Speaker 1]: That's good.

[Speaker 5]: The I think the first question that the senator asked was what about livestock not on a farm? And Josh spoke to that in his comments. I'll just say a little bit more, which is imagine going into a town office and proving that your goat is a pet and not for harvest, or your chicken is a is for harvest and not a pet. So the way municipalities regulate animals, is is not determined by whether or not they're intended to be food. It's based off of the safety and security of the animal and the impact that it would have depending on the type of district and area of the community that you're in. And like Josh said, the most common regulations that apply to laying fowl in Vermont are pending and fencing, and then some municipalities have a limit to the size of the block. But we don't care if it's a pet duck or duck intended for New Year's Eve dinner, you know. Not how we go out and assess

[Speaker 2]: poop. And just to that point, do we have consistency from town to town, municipality municipality?

[Speaker 5]: I mean, we we have

[Speaker 0]: Two fifty one.

[Speaker 1]: I thought we were two fifty two.

[Speaker 5]: But this is disputed. We're gonna handle it by the end of session. So you said Well, we don't we don't count there are many Gors. Incorporated villages, unincorporated gores. Oh, okay.

[Speaker 4]: Thank you. Yeah. So when you've been here a while, you you Yeah.

[Speaker 2]: That's that's good.

[Speaker 5]: Last year, we got two new villages.

[Speaker 3]: The common the common sort of ordinance around backyard chicken coops is six land tanks is allowed. Above that, you might need to get some sort of provisions, and so there is some consistency, but

[Speaker 5]: It but I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be a petulant. We don't have consistency in how many units of housing you can build town to town, or how many stories apartment building or hotel can be. It's based off of the it's an outcome of the local process that determines these local regulations. You were the one

[Speaker 2]: that's talking about eating pets.

[Speaker 5]: I've been the bed chair for twenty five years.

[Speaker 3]: So I if you wanna go there.

[Speaker 1]: Yeah. Let's stay out of that.

[Speaker 5]: Yes. But it's this is this is our point. Right? Like, if you have a dog, I have two dogs, and you have license to that dog, you did it at your town hall.

[Speaker 1]: Yeah.

[Speaker 5]: And you provided a vaccination record, likely. And if you brought your dog here to Montpelier, you would walk it down the street on a leash, and that's because of Montpelier's animal originates. So as long as people have lived in Vermont, they have lived with animals here, and it has been a practice of the community and the norms of that community, to to come up with these rules that say, your pets are not gonna endanger my property or my animals and vice versa. And that includes requiring things like fences and leashes. So we think that's working well. Just like some folks don't wanna open their apps, we don't wanna open animal ordinance, because suddenly we're gonna be talking about bearded dragons and, oxalotls and, you know, like feeder crickets. We don't wanna do it. So the question about what the other states do, we did look at this prior to meeting with the agency some months ago, and there are only two states that have total municipal preemptions, is how we word it. So there are two states that have state laws that completely restrict municipal regulation from applying to agriculture activity. Those are Montana and Kansas. Although, I'll say we weren't quite sure about the care both Carolina, so it might force needs. Someone said, what about Iowa? I looked it up, and it's interesting. Iowa allows municipalities to regulate farming except in a few situations. One is building structures in the floodplain. We think agriculture is very compatible. Many agricultural, activities are compatible with, for existing municipal, by law for floodplain and flood hazard areas. And also in Iowa, water quality and soil management. So the state of Iowa regulates farming activities for water quality, and then municipalities of Iowa regulate farming activities for structures, parking traffic, egress, other.

[Speaker 3]: And just as some of you mentioned, no, states are different. There's county government, there's different districts. There's a lot of states that manage agriculture in a way that says outside of these metropolitan zones, our city limits, then there's no regulation. Within those city limits, there's regulation, and that's how most states operate.

[Speaker 5]: Sorry, that brings a point I actually wrote down and really wanted to make about this, is that in states such as Rhode Island, the other parts of New England, where municipalities are allowed this authority to regulate agriculture activity as they do other types of commercial activity, it also allows them to promote farming on prime ag soils and to restrict other commercial uses in those areas. So you have places where you say, okay, in our downtown district, in our mixed use, or in our high industrial manufacturing district, you may not do these types of farming. In these historically farming communities and areas, we will actually restrict anyone from opening a laundry mat or building a hotel or a purse factory, right, which allows the the municipality to play a role in protecting and holding on to working lands, as well as moving incompatible land uses away from those working lands. We we have taken a different path here in Vermont, and our proposal is consistent with that path, which is to exempt farming from municipal regulation except for in these Act two fifty exempted areas where we think some local regulation is gonna be appropriate and effective?

[Speaker 1]: So I think the word the word that everybody is afraid of is the word regulate regulation. And And I think that's really what it is. And there's a lot of changes going on, especially in the Act two fifty exempt areas, the the the tier one a situation. So I don't wanna get outside. I don't wanna get this into the weeds of anything, and I don't wanna get into it. But, I hear with what you're saying that how you want to be, which we respect that totally. But this scenario, in this tier 1A downtown development area, you've got a farmer there. They've got frontage right up to the center, green and whatever, and in between houses and whatever, and they're doing farms, and you guys are fine with that. But you have the town that says, you know what? I just think that land right there, right up the last center, I think that ought to be housing. I think it ought to be housing. Where does the protections come in at that point for that farmer, and where does the leak stand on something like that in that scenario, where there's no more Act two fifty? Where does the leak come in with a situation like that?

[Speaker 5]: The answer is really simple. If the relationship would be the same as if that was a place of worship or a state owned building or a homeless shelter, The municipal regulation may allow for the place where the homeless shelter is to be a 10 story mixed use multifamily apartment building. But

[Speaker 1]: to get there, maybe you're getting there, but what if the farmer doesn't wanna put that there, but the town thinks for the betterment of the betterment of the good of the community Yeah. That we ought to have that land to do that.

[Speaker 5]: Then they won't.

[Speaker 2]: Property. Right?

[Speaker 5]: Their property.

[Speaker 3]: You know, that's the other. If there's existing farm structures that don't comply with the current zoning in these areas, they're grandfathered. We don't go back and say, you've gotta change this. Move your buildings back because it doesn't have the a new setback requirement. But with all the changes that

[Speaker 1]: are going on, that farmer doesn't have to worry about losing that land. Farmers, was the something else, Joe Major,

[Speaker 4]: and a house. Like that

[Speaker 1]: or worry about the town capturing that land. The league will stand there and say, no. You can't do that. I mean, you'll you'll be there to defend that farmer from that town deciding that that would be better served to be a something other than farm to that.

[Speaker 3]: I mean, the state has already determined that that area that has water and sewer is allowed to build five units per acre density up to three or four stories, but there's nothing saying you must convert that. That's up to the property owner

[Speaker 1]: and their decisions.

[Speaker 5]: More importantly, the Vermont state constitution prevents paintings, And it doesn't ask if you're a farmer or not.

[Speaker 1]: Okay.

[Speaker 5]: So, I've we're not prepared today to talk about No, I don't eminent domain, but that is protected by tapings law.

[Speaker 4]: Okay. Yeah. Okay.

[Speaker 5]: And so just so just like now, it's if a farmer is conducting agriculture activity in a tier one area, and they are subjected to municipal regulations that say, well, when you take down that fence and you rebuild it, it can only be this tall, or it has to be this much farther back from the road than the old fence. That is the regulation that their neighbors on either side who are not farmers are subjected to as well. And just like their neighbors on both sides don't have to sell their property to a hotel company, neither does the farmer. It, you know, they experience the same private property rights as everyone else.

[Speaker 1]: Okay. Yeah.

[Speaker 4]: Yeah.

[Speaker 3]: And just, you know, the fear that this regulation of municipalities is going to drive off farming is driving a lot of the conversation, you know, from the the tap case. You know, we've heard lots of concerns, rightly so, of the loss of farming and the loss of agriculture land. Hasn't municipal regulations hasn't been the cause of that. There's been other economic factors, unfortunately. And so I just think we have to ground ourself with what the the the reality is before this case and after this case, and that where we are of regulating farming, those aren't the factors that are driving out farming from the municipal regulations of it. Prior times or current times, and so anyways, we present a different sort of approach to this that we think is more eloquent and doesn't open up a lot of other concerns and still guarantees the right to farming everywhere in the state, including the dense areas, and then prohibits any municipal influence on 98% of the state in title 24, which doesn't exist right now. It's opening this up and saying, yep, we're gonna codify this and make it a priority for the state in a way that we haven't done before. And that was a big vote for our board to say we're going to give up our traditional approach that municipalities should have their own rights to have zoning and bylaws that carry out their vision through a town process, through a town plan, we're gonna let that go, because agriculture is that important. In dense areas, we need to have some rules that everyone plays by. That's essentially what our proposal Committee?

[Speaker 1]: All set. Thank you. Very good. Thank you. Thank you very much. We're gonna take just a five minute break. We'll come back. Maddie's gonna be up provide a good with that, and a five minute break, please.