Agriculture is exempt from Act 250. However, recent changes from Act 181 (2024) were seeking to prescribe Act 250 permitting of Accessory On-Farm Businesses that make improvements for farm events or farm stays. The new language of the law (Act 181 of 2024, p. 25) did not mention multi-use structures at all. Farming structures are explicitly exempt from municipal zoning (24 V.S.A. § 4413 (d)(1)(a)). Rural Vermont had testified on April 24 to the Senate Committee on Agriculture stating that there would be good arguments for the interpretation that Act 250 exempts farming structures and their multi-use unless permitting would be triggered through a commercial use that qualifies as “development” in statute. 

The Issue At Hand

The issue was raised by the Feast and Field collective of three farms during Small Farm Action Day events at the State House on March 26 and April 23. At the end of last year, the Vermont Natural Resources Board (NRB) –now Land Use Review Board (LURB)– had issued a notice stating that a multi-use agricultural pole barn the collective built last spring violates Act 250 and requires a permit. The rationale? They claim the structure was "principally constructed" as a stage and that Act 181 prohibits farms from building infrastructure for "non-farm" activities without a permit. In contrast, the zoning administrator of the town of Barnard and the Selectboard agreed that the pole barn would be primarily used for agriculture —storing hay, bottles, and farm equipment for most of the year— and that it does not trigger local zoning regulations nor that it should trigger Act 250. The structure is occasionally used (15-20 times in the summer) as covered space for live music to accompany the Feast and Field event where the farms serve food they prepare with ingredients mostly sourced from their farms. 

A multi-use structure on Fable Farm in Barnard - covered winter storage for equipment and supplies.

The same multi-use structure being used for hay storage in the fall.

The Senate Committee on Agriculture is supportive in addressing this issue with the House version of the miscellaneous agricultural bill that they are currently working on, H.484. Now the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy will start to hear about the proposed changes, signaling a risk of them plowing the clarification under before the bill makes its way to the Senate floor. We are deeply concerned H.484 could strand in its second committee of jurisdiction, as the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy has to agree to the proposed clarification that multi-use farming structures are exempt from Act 250 as well. 

We have not been invited to testify before this committee (yet) and are deeply concerned that in the process of working toward a solution, the many well-meaning players and special interests could push for a "solution" that could actually make things worse and expand the LURB's jurisdiction over farms by requiring “Special Event Permits” for each and every event. A proposal we successfully fought off in the Senate Committee on Agriculture before. 

What You Can Do 

Please reach out to the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy NOW to express your support for multi-use structures to be clearly exempt from Act 250 permitting. We recommend that you email your Senator - if that Senator serves on the committee - or to email the committee assistant and to include the entire committee “CC.”

Subject: Clarify that Multi-Use Farming Structures are Exempt from Act 250.  

Email the committee assistant: Judith Newman (jnewman@leg.state.vt.us) and CC the following Senators:

Chair Anne Watson, Washington District, awatson@leg.state.vt.us 

Vice Chair Terry Williams, Rutland District, tkwilliams@leg.state.vt.us 

Ruth Hardy, Addison District, rhardy@leg.state.vt.us 

Seth Bongartz, Bennington District, sbongartz@leg.state.vt.us 

Scott Beck, Calendonia District, sbeck@leg.state.vt.us 

Here’s a draft message for your outreach: 

“Dear Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy,

Please support Rural Vermont’s language to clarify that new or existing multi-use agricultural structures are exempt from Act 250 permitting through amending 10 V.S.A. 6081 (t) (1):

"No permit or permit amendment is required for the construction of improvements used as part of an accessory on-farm business as defined in 24 V.S.A. § 4412(11), including for hosting events, as long as the new or existing structure is primarily used as a farm structure as defined in 24 V.S.A. § 4413(d)(2)(A). This subsection shall apply to new or existing structures."

Agriculture has always been exempt from Act 250 permitting and the current law is ambiguous with regards to multi-use structures. It is important to me that the legislature clarifies that farm structures are exempt from Act 250 permitting just as they are exempt from municipal zoning. Farmers should not jump through hoops of a case by case permitting structure but I favor for multi-use structures to be clearly exempt from Act 250 permitting just as the multi-use of structures is exempt from municipal zoning.

Farmers need clear language around multi-use agricultural structures. Agricultural activity has always been exempt from Act 250, and events like Feast and Field at Fable Farm already qualify under the Accessory On-Farm Business (AOFB) exemption from municipal zoning. What's unclear and causing unnecessary confusion is whether a structure like the farm's pole barn, which supports farming functions most of the year and only occasionally hosts music, is covered under Act 250. The law is currently ambiguous on this point. Multi-use structures like this should be clearly exempt from Act 250 permitting, just as they are from local zoning, and farmers shouldn't have to jump through hoops every time they want to use their own space. These structures are vital to small farm viability, and the lack of clarity puts their future at risk.

This issue matters to me because Vermont's farm culture depends on flexibility, creativity, and connection. Feast and Field is clearly rooted in agriculture, and the structure that supports it serves farm purposes year-round. [Any personal story here helps. Share how Feast and Field or similar events or accessory farm businesses bring you closer to agriculture and the land]

I understand that your time is in high demand as you work tirelessly in service to the people of Vermont, so while a written response is not necessary, your attention to this matter is sincerely appreciated.

Sincerely,

[Your name]

[Your town]

THANK YOU!

Call to Action: Join our AOFB Stakeholder Call

Stricter Act 250 regulations for Accessory On-Farm Businesses since 2024

Did you know that at the very end of the 2024 legislative session, the Vermont legislature passed a law (see Section 18, Act 181 of 2024, starting on p.25) that exempts farm stores from Act 250 permits but not farm events or farm stays - functionally implying these types of accessory on-farm businesses will need act 250 permits?  It also addresses and affects the development of value-added products (the preparation or processing of farm products) as an Act 250 permit is now required unless that aspect of the farm business will make at least 50 percent of the total annual sales from products of the farm itself - without outlining how that is going to be monitored or enforced. 

Rural Vermont tracked and reported on the 2024 legislation, which was introduced as H.128 with support from the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets (VAAFM). We expressed concern about the impacts these changes would have on the farming community to VAAFM, as farms that operated Accessory On-Farm Businesses (AOFBs) of all types were previously under the impression they were exempt from Act 250. H. 128 did not pass, but the critical language was adopted last minute into a major land use bill, H. 687, that did pass (Act 181, Section 18 on p. 25). 

Several legislators now seek to amend this issue and introduced H.94 that would further clarify that “no permit or permit amendment is required for the construction of improvements related to hosting events or farm stays as part of an accessory on-farm business [...] if the farm is located in a municipality that has adopted performance standards and site plan review.” 

We are building a stakeholder group committed to informing and shaping this new pending legislation to ensure that it works for the farming community. We started to hear from members that the 2024 changes negatively impact their farms and disadvantage the development and continued operation of their accessory businesses. We want to hear from you  - please take a few minutes to fill out this form if this change or this law more broadly impacts you! Hearing from our members is the first step in developing a different legislative proposal that better serves the agrarian community. 

---

Take Action! We are interested in hearing from you about how the new law (Act 181, Section 18 on p. 25) and H. 94 impact your farm viability and your ability to continue to operate or to develop your accessory on-farm businesses

1. Join one of our two initial stakeholder group calls:

   1. Morning of Wednesday 2/12, 10.30 am - 12:00pm

   2. Evening of Wednesday 2/12, 7:00pm - 8.30 pm

   3. RSVP HERE!

2. Please fill out this Google form in advance to share with us how the new law affects you

3. Call your legislator to speak up about your concerns as a farm with an accessory on-farm business needing an Act 250 permit because of the changes from Act 181 of 2024. Find your legislator here and let us know if your legislator is interested in addressing this issue!

---

TAKE ACTION!

1. Farmers! We are interested in hearing from you about how the new law (Act 181, Section 18 on p. 25) and H. 94 impact your farm viability and your ability to continue to operate or to develop your accessory on-farm businesses. Please fill out this Google form to share your thoughts and be in touch.

2. Call your legislator to speak up about your concerns as a farm with an accessory on-farm business needing an Act 250 permit because of the changes from Act 181 of 2024. Find your legislator here and let us know if your legislator is interested in addressing this issue!

The Vermont Conservation Strategy Initiative (VCSI) is underway - and it is important that we use our voice to influence it! Act 59 was passed in 2023 with a goal to conserve 30% of Vermont’s total area by 2030 and 50% by 2050.

As Vermont is developing a new conservation plan - its policies and regulations more broadly - must protect and support food sovereignty, and the rights of people and communities articulated in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas:
“Peasants and other people living in rural areas have the right to land, individually and/or collectively (...), including the right to have access to, sustainably use and manage land and the water bodies, coastal seas, fisheries, pastures, and forests therein, to achieve an adequate standard of living, to have a place to live in security, peace and dignity and to develop their cultures.” - Article 17 UNDROP (United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas, 2018)

---

Join Rural Vermont in urging the Agricultural Working Group before Wednesday 3/13 at 11am (their last meeting during the inventory phase) to:

• Affirm the consensus of the PES and Soil Health Working Group against new programs based on measuring outcomes in agriculture.

  • The PES and Soil Health Working Group met from 2019-2023 to address questions from the VT legislature related to: ag standards and practices for better environmental outcomes, existing and potential incentives, and proposed changes and programs. Ultimately, the group opposed proposals grounded in measured outcome based models that could lead to the development of carbon and offsets markets in VT agriculture, and favored the CSP+ approach recommended by the Small Farm Cohort, which involves enhancing support for sustainable farming practices through increasing access to, and improving, existing federal programs for Vermont farmers.

• Protect 30x30 and land conservation efforts from being financed by carbon and / or other “off-set” markets.

• Rural VT has long been in solidarity with the National Family Farm Coalition, La Via Campesina, the Indigenous Environmental Network, the Institute for Ag and Trade Policy, Friends of the Earth and others in opposing carbon and other “off-set” markets.  Globally, the goal to conserve 30% of land and sea by 2030, and 50% by 2050 have been paired with the “net zero” ideology and offset markets, resulting in land grabs, and displacement of communities from working lands and waters (see recent New York Times article from Feb 20th, 2024). There is significant data around carbon markets’ ineffectiveness at actually lowering emissions, their impacts on corporate land ownership and displacement of communities, and more broadly as false solutions to the climate crisis.

• Recommend policies that ensure conserved land is protected from corporate and consolidated ownership and which facilitate farmland access and ownership for farmers and farmworkers; maintaining community sovereignty over land use over time.

• In VT, and around the world, we are seeing large “conservation” organizations, corporations, and governments working together towards conserving land and waters with a vision of conservation which: is largely absent of human presence; in which conserved land and agricultural land are seen as forms of wealth management, investment and a class of “natural asset”; which does not protect local communities’ democratic control of land and resources; which displaces indigenous peoples and farmers and fisherfolk; which does not take into account critical human needs such as food sovereignty and resiliency; and which positions and defers to markets and corporate actors as principle arbiters of access, control, equity, and the future of these places (check out our glossary of terms here and list of resources here). In our efforts to protect the integrity of our ecosystems and habitat, and to ensure we have farmland enough to feed the people living here - we must also protect our communities’ democratic control over, and access to, the land as one of our most critical resources.

• Protect all farmland in VT from development in perpetuity, with flexibility for development of housing and essential infrastructure, and enable and support the conversion of land (including conserved land) into agriculture, and into the hands and control of the people working the land. 

• According to Hunger Free VT, two out of every five people in VT are food insecure. We rely upon importation for the vast majority of our food across the northeast, and New England Feeding New England reports that we need to bring back into production 400,000 acres of land in underutilized production and an additional 590,000 of additional acres of new crop land to even meet 30% of our regional food needs by 2030. The American Farmland Trust (AFT) estimates that VT could lose another 41,000 acres by 2040 if current trends continue - or more if trends worsen. AFT also pointed to the imminent turnover of 40% of farmland within the next couple of decades as farm owners / operators age and move on from farming. Agricultural support programs have been underfunded 50% from what the administration requested in 2023. We need more independent farms, more farmers, more farmworkers, more farmland, more agroecological education and training to even meet 30% of our regional needs; and these considerations must be fundamental to the VCSI. The inventory report should outline land currently in agriculture, land in agriculture currently conserved, what land is potentially best positioned to be converted into farmland moving forward, and how much we will need to assure food security and sovereignty over time. Policies beyond conservation easements must be considered in the upcoming two year conservation planning phase. 

• Invite the meaningful inclusion of VT’s indigenous community in the 30 x 30 process.

• The enabling statute finds that “the land and waters, forests and farms, and ecosystems and natural communities in Vermont are the traditional and unceded home of the Abenaki people”, meaning that any effort to increase land conservation must include land access opportunities for Indigenous People and to all who come from historically marginalized and disadvantaged communities.  President Biden’s executive order of 2021 on 30x30 explicitly honors Tribal Sovereignty and supports the priorities of Tribal Nations. Currently, neither of the State recognized Abenaki tribes are represented in any of the work groups that are part of the Vermont Conservation Strategy Initiative. We believe that the Indigenous people of Vermont have important knowledge to share about land care strategies and that their ideas for land use and conservation should be decisive for the Vermont Conservation Plan that’s projected for the end of 2025.

• Recognize that the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets is the authority regulating VT agriculture.

• Act 59 calls for enhanced support for the working lands through land conservation. It is positive that the state wants to better support the working lands and diversified farming in alignment with soil health principles. The 30x30 initiative and conservation easements specifically are not an appropriate place for regulating agricultural practices. Improving the Required Agricultural Practices Rule is the appropriate path to addressing these concerns equitably amongst producers. The definition of sustainable land management as defined in Act 59 opens the door for linking measured outcomes of biodiversity with off-set trading schemes as a financing strategy because it can be interpreted as only including those parcels of agricultural land that enhance biodiversity at a measurable rate. Alternatively, ”sustainable land management” can be interpreted to include all agricultural lands with good reason. Grasslands are specifically named - that’s ¾ of all conserved agricultural lands - and the UVM State of Soil Health in Vermont initiative provides evidence that soil health across all types of farming in Vermont is presently preserving those soils’ ability to support and restore biodiversity in the future. Even in those cases where current agricultural practices have the potential to negatively impact biodiversity, they are free from development and practices can be improved. All agricultural lands are important and all farms manage highly threatened natural resources that are crucial to Vermont’s future food security and climate resilience.

---

TAKE ACTION!

Step 1: Visit https://www.ruralvermont.org/30x30 for more information about 30x30,  a list of references, and a glossary of terms.

Step 2: Email all members of the Ag Working Group of the VCSI before Wednesday 3/13 at 11am (their last meeting during the inventory phase) and express your support for any or all of our recommendations to be included in the inventory report on behalf of the agricultural community in Vermont. Email addresses for Ag Working Group members can be found below, along with a sample message that can be personalized.

Step 3: Join the (30x30) VT Conservation Strategy Initiative Focus Group for "smallholder farmers" taking place on Tuesday March 12 from 2 - 3:30 PM by Zoom. You need to register to get the zoom link. Registration is HERE!  The session will be recorded by the hosts. There is a stipend being offered for attendees that you can sign up for upon registration.

---

SAMPLE MESSAGE - COPY, EDIT, & PASTE INTO THE BODY OF YOUR EMAIL!

I want the Agricultural Working Group of the VCSI to adopt a statement against financing the conservation of land in VT, and / or coordinating the VCSI process, with carbon credits and / or through offset markets. Instead, I want to see the meaningful inclusion of indigenous and agrarian peoples, and the development of policies that protect community sovereignty over land, that grow our agricultural land base, and that protect farmland for farmers by facilitating affordable farmland and housing for farmers and farmworkers.

In doing so, the Ag Working Group saves significant public dollars by avoiding any duplicacy to the processes of the Payment for Ecosystem Services & Soil Health Working Group by aligning with the consensus reached during that process for the State of Vermont to not further invest in financializing and "measuring outcomes of agricultural practices," “payment for ecosystem services,” “natural capital,” the “financialization of nature” and the “privatization of the commons.” 

Around the globe, developments in conservation planning paired with PES/ carbon market financing schemes represent an alignment of the interests of corporate investors with development agencies, conservation organizations, research institutions, national economies, and consumers, around the potential to profit from the creation of new asset classes in ecosystem function. These are not solutions to climate change nor the biodiversity crisis. These solutions do not offer equitable solutions to indigenous communities, farmers and farm workers and neither do they maintain community sovereignty over land, land use, and critical natural resources. 

For the purposes of protecting agricultural land and the autonomy and independence of our communities and farmers, the Ag Working Group can recommend reforms to the tools available in land use planning to approach a vision and goal of advancing support for the working lands and biodiversity through land conservation so that all agricultural land can count in acres towards the 30x30 & 50x50 goals in a way that aligns with the needs of our region related to human rights, food security and democratic control of our essential resources.

Stacy Cibula, facilitation VHCB  s.cibula@vhcb.org

Ryan Patch, co-facilitation VAAFM Ryan.Patch@vermont.gov

Eric Clifford, Champlain Valley Farmers Coalition info@champlainvalleyfarmercoalition.com

Mike Snow, CT River Watershed Farmers Alliance crwfa.info@gmail.com

Scott Magnan, Franklin Grand Isle Farmers Watershed Alliance FarmersWatershedAllianceNW@gmail.com

Dave Blodgett, Natural Resources Conservation Service david.blodgett@usda.gov

Jen Miller, Nofa-VT jen@nofavt.org

Caroline Gordon, Rural Vermont caroline@ruralvermont.org

Rosalind Renfrew, ANR (Fish & Wildlife) rosalind.renfrew@vermont.gov 

Marli Rupi, ANR (DEC) marli.rupe@vermont.gov

Darlene Reynolds, VT Dairy Producer Alliance vdpa16@gmail.com 

Jackie Folsom, VT Farm Bureau vtfb@gmavt.net

Stephen Leslie, Cedar Mountain Farm representing Vermont Healthy Soils Coalition hartlandyoga@yahoo.com

Tyler Miller, Vermont Land Trust tyler@vlt.org

Jennifer Byrne, White River Conservation District whiterivernrcd@gmail.com 

Holly McClintock, VHCB staff h.mcclintock@vhcb.org 

Isaac Bissell, VHCB staff I.Bissell@vhcb.org 

Trey Martin, VHCB staff  t.martin@vhcb.org