H.941 Municipal Exemption: House decides to protect the ambiguous zoning of livestock and poultry
Despite our coalitions’ advocacy and the most recent action alert from earlier this week, the full House voted on (and passed) H.941 on Thursday, May 14th. The version of the bill that passed was a new version: 6.1. This version of the bill contained a strike all amendment as of 1:54 pm on July 14th and was brought forward by the House Ag committee. This bill is, in some major ways, quite the opposite of what we've been asking for. Here are the ins and outs:
restores municipal exemption for farming and farm structures as defined by the RAPs (anyone making at least $2k from farming or filing Schedule F, as now)
the house inserted a stakeholder group led by the LAOB, looking into local regs of small livestock farms and how zoning them does or could limit them, infringe food security, and to make recommendations with VLCT on how to address that
There is a new right to grow plants, but cannabis and hemp are specifically not included in this new exemption from zoning for plants
Livestock farms smaller than 4 acres might not benefit from the farming exemption; the agency of agriculture has discretion whether or not the RAPs will apply to them, and it's not clear how they will exercise that discretion and on what basis. Because of the new local control over livestock farms on less than 1 acre or possibly up to 4 acres, towns (like Swanton, Wallingford, Barre, etc.) could expand their pre-existing frameworks of limiting livestock types and numbers in ambiguous ways. The language in title 24 and the RAPs does not give many specifics for how to exercise the discretion: "that the raising, feeding, or managing of livestock on a farm with at least 1.0 contiguous acre and less than 4.0 contiguous acres shall have a sufficient land base for appropriate nutrient and waste management as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture, Food, and Markets to be exempt from regulation by municipal zoning bylaws."
A new provision on non-commercial poultry in 24 V.S.A. 4412, is unclear about how beneficial or harmful it will be. It allows towns to limit anyone from raising more than 12 chickens or any number of other types of poultry. Confusingly, it doesn’t allow for prohibiting poultry, but fails to acknowledge that setting ambiguous caps on the number of poultry anyone can raise equals a prohibition if it limits someone's reasonable land use and possible intentions for farming ventures. Lawmakers cared more for clarifying that, yes, ratites are not included in this “protection” for poultry than to consider adding meat rabbits to the mix (probably for the better at the end). Given that many towns currently cap raising chickens to no more than 6 or fewer (South Burlington, Burlington, Waterville, Newport, Springfield, Williston, Essex Junction), it may be seen as a win that the House allowed raising at least twice as many. However, they allowed municipalities to set any other number for any other type of poultry, with or without considering what land base would be appropriate to raise them. Their language that a town “may” consider land base is basically a free pass to not consider land base. Instead of mandating caps to be based on land base (“shall”) as requested by our coalition. Instead of creating a consistent new statewide framework for local control that would rule out broad stroke prohibitions altogether, H.941 is now offering the regulation of livestock and poultry farming up for local control, unreasonable caps, and blanket bans.
Here is the language:
"No bylaw shall have the effect of prohibiting or assessing a fee for the raising, feeding, or management of a poultry flock, excluding roosters and ratites, for personal use, donation, or sale. At a minimum, no bylaw shall have the effect of prohibiting the keeping of fewer than 12 chickens or a number determined by a municipality, whichever number is higher. Municipalities may consider parcel size to establish other limitations on the number of poultry birds. A bylaw may establish a numerical limit of any poultry to be fewer than the minimum number as enumerated in Section 3 of the Required Agricultural Practices Rule, regardless of parcel size. As used in this section, “poultry” has the same meaning as in 6 V.S.A. § 1459(4).”
Our coalition asked to require towns to specify the land base relation to animal caps (if they set an animal number). Instead, the legislative intent of the House accomplishes the opposite: towns “may” now specifically set a number without considering the land base if they choose to, possibly significantly limiting and/or regulating someone's ability to use their land to raise poultry and livestock and to grow a farming business.
Unfortunately, even though we’ve been working with one of the broadest agriculture and food systems stakeholder groups in many years, united in advocacy to avoid being the new status quo of the Vt Supreme Court Decision on Taft Street to be upheld in law, towns can now decide where they want small livestock farms (smaller than 4 acres) and still set ambiguous prohibitions against livestock types and numbers. It remains to be seen if legislators' exclusive protections against towns banning pigs in town or prohibiting less than 12 chickens will survive the test of time.
STATUS: Process-wise, next, the Senate will have the chance to either concur with the House version of the bill or to request a committee of conference. In comparison to the Senate version, the only two differences are the study committee and the language around poultry, where the Senate version is more vague, allowing for a “small backyard poultry flock, excluding roosters,” which is likely language that will not mean much in a court of law when assessing the validity of existing zoning laws.
Act 181 & S.325: Land Use Law and Policy
S.325, a bill relating to regional planning and Act 250 tier jurisdiction, has been proposed to strike several major components of Act 181, as previously described in our From The Statehouse Blog. It has passed through the Senate and the House, with the Senate now considering the amendments proposed during passage through the House, including their repeal of the road rule and Tier 3 (see the House committee report on S.325).
S.325 has seen several amendments on the House floor last week. Representative Greg Burtt proposed two floor amendments relevant to agriculture, one of which received overwhelming support of 142 yays and 2 nays that could expand the Act 250 exemption for all types of Accessory on Farm Businesses (amendment language and votes). The bill also includes a new Section 9 (starting on page 7 of the bill), which reworks a public engagement strategy. Many Vermonters expressed exclusion from the recent land use planning decisions made by the legislature and Section 9 would charge four stakeholders, including the Land Access and Opportunity Board, the Vermont Association of Conservation Districts, the Vermont Council of Rural Development, and the State Natural Resources Conservation Council to consult about a path for the betterment that would address:
the risks of losing working lands, both agricultural and forestland, and critical natural resources not already well protected by current land use policy, permitting programs, or other regulatory tools, including agricultural soils, rare natural communities, forest blocks, habitat connectors of statewide significance, and headwaters; and
equitable, efficient, and effective regulatory or nonregulatory tools to protect these working lands and critical natural resources.
Rural Vermont’s engagement during the implementation of land use laws such as Act 181 and Act 59 has been much about calling out the insufficient public engagement of those processes and their lack of addressing working lands issues specifically in a farmer-led way. All around, S.325 now holds exciting news for many in the farming community, but will still need to pass the Senate to become law at the end of this session. Here are some more details on the Burtt amendments:
No Act 250 Permits for Accessory On-Farm Businesses
The first Burtt amendment to Act 181 says that no Act 250 permits (or permit amendments) are required for structures used by Accessory On-Farm Businesses (AOFBs) for “educational, recreational, or social events that feature agricultural practices or qualifying products.” Rural Vermont has advocated for years for Act 250 exemptions for AOFBs, and called out in 2024 that Act 181 had been amended at the last minute with language that failed earlier to expand Act 250 permitting requirements for AOFBs, without hearing sufficiently from farmers affected. We are grateful to see this progress: we know that this will be important for the livelihoods of many farmers. Unfortunately, we also know that sometimes these exemptions are abused in order to operate other businesses without Act 250 oversight. We recognize that additional legislative work and refinement may be needed in future sessions, but that there likely isn’t time to do that refinement in this session. Rural Vermont has advocated in past years for AOFB’s to be exempt from Act 250, as well as to protect broad eligibility and accountability for compliance with the rules for farming.
2. Make Small-Scale Agriculture & Forestry a Priority in Smart Growth Principles
The Second Burtt amendment passed with 77 yays and 66 nays after a roll call vote is about Smart Growth Principles, as currently defined in Vermont statute on development patterns. These principles promote compact development and caution against farmland fragmentation. While these are healthy goals in some ways, they often lack enforceability, and other parts of the definition can even be interpreted by town and regional planners in ways that could be harmful to small-scale agriculture. For example, breaking up some very-large farm parcels (many old dairies are hundreds of acres) into smaller ones is critical to making farmland affordable to the next generation even though this subdividing process can be viewed as “fragmentation.” (This is important for reversing the trend of farm consolidation: read the recent article in the New England Beacon “The Punishing Economics Facing Vermont’s Small Farms” from April 7, 2026, that Rural Vermont was interviewed for.) Burtt’s amendment makes explicit that these principles should be applied in ways that serve to “strengthen homesteading, small-scale agriculture, and forestry.” Representative Burtt discussed the amendments with the House Environment Committee on May 6th.
Take Action!
The legislature installed a conference committee on S.325 and appointed three Representatives and Senators to negotiate the final version of the bill (without being allowed to add anything new). Here are the names and links to the members of that committee of conference. Senators will decide if they concur with the House amendment for exempting all AOFBs from Act 250 permitting, and to make small-scale agriculture and forestry a priority in smart growth principles:
Rep. Amy Sheldon
asheldon@leg.state.vt.us
Rep. Larry Labor
llabor@leg.state.vt.us
Rep. Ela Chapin
echapin@leg.state.vt.us
Sen. Anne Watson
awatson@leg.state.vt.us
Sen. Seth Bongartz
sbongartz@leg.state.vt.us
Sen. Terry Williams
tkwilliams@leg.state.vt.us
S.323: Miscellaneous Ag Bill controversy in Section on Seed Law
This legislative session’s S.323 has a section on seed law. Most of the dialogue about this bill was that it was “housekeeping” and that the changes were insubstantial. Upon a closer review a few weeks ago, we saw language that was proposed by the seed industry and had received essentially no testimony from farmers or homesteaders who use, produce, trade, or share seed. We began to notice concerning elements in the bill: the reframing of registration and fee requirements to be not just for seed sale, but seed distribution broadly, which could potentially make seed barter and other forms of sharing among commercial and non-commercial users more difficult. It also included a clause that would weaken labeling requirements for coated seeds like neonics (pg. 17, lines 12-15) and gave the Secretary of Agriculture broad discretion to adopt terms defined by big players in the industry worldwide without going through a public rulemaking process.
On a very short timeline, we reached out and received support from seed experts and advocates in our network to discuss our concerns, and collaborated with NOFA-VT to pressure the House Agriculture committee to remove this section. Our advocacy was successful: they did remove most of the section, including the parts we were most concerned about (final changes at the bottom of this legislative page).
Take Action!
You can thank Representatives on the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency and Forestry for amending the bill (find your Representative here). If you reach out to Senators, you can ask them to concur with the House’s changes to the seed sections of S.323.
S.278 Cannabis Update
Rural Vermont is short-staffed at the moment, and we have been leaning heavily on our colleagues and friends at the Vermont Growers Association, as well as our partners at the Vermont Cannabis Equity Coalition, to keep us informed and updated on pending legislation on Cannabis and Hemp. Special thanks to Geoffrey Pizzutillo.
Bill S.278 (An act relating to cannabis) remains in the House Government Operations and Military Affairs, where testimony has been taken from retailers, special interest groups, non-profits, agencies, and more over the last few weeks, and mark-ups to the bill were introduced this week. Here are the relevant updates from this week’s mark-up sessions:
Package limit increase from 100mg to 200 mg remains, retail transaction limit and adult possession limit from one ounce to two ounces remains, and increase to the possession limit for concentrates from five grams to 10 grams remains
Direct sales event permits remain, but the number of permits was reduced to 10 (5 public, 5 private)
Rental protections remain
The retail opt-in reform (making the opt-in process easier) remains
The outdoor cultivator fee reductions remain, but the effective date is pushed back to 2027
Opportunity for licensed cannabis cultivators to form a cannabis cultivator cooperative remains
Delivery section REMOVED
Cannabis Business Development Fund REMOVED
