Legislative Update 5.14.26
H.941 Municipal Exemption Update & Action Alert
Summary of Changes to the Bill: The Senate Agriculture Committee unanimously approved a new version of H.941 on April 29. The bill restores the municipal exemption for farming and farm structures and creates a new right for non-commercial producers to grow plants and poultry.
Our coalition did not have the opportunity to testify on this version, but we appreciate that the Agency of Agriculture, Food, and Markets (VAAFM) backed away from earlier proposals in S.323 that would have made it harder to qualify as a farm under state law. Under H.941, farms can still qualify with at least $2,000 in annual gross income or by filing a Schedule F with the IRS.
However, significant changes in the bill remain for small livestock farms. Under the new framework:
Livestock farms generally must be at least 4 acres to automatically qualify for exemption from municipal zoning.
Municipalities gain zoning authority over livestock farms under 1 acre.
VAAFM will have discretion over whether farms between 1 and 4 acres qualify for farming protections.
Towns may adopt ‘reasonable’ standards for pigs and waste management in village centers and downtowns, so long as those rules do not prohibit raising pigs altogether.
H.941 passed the Senate on May 6, after Senators rejected a floor amendment from Senator Vyhovsky that our coalition opposed that would have capped homesteaders from raising more than six chickens. Thank you to everyone who responded to our earlier action alert — your outreach made a difference (please follow up with your Senators to thank them)! However, it’s far from over as now the House is considering AGAIN to limit homesteaders from raising any more than six chickens (page 6 of the bill). During committee discussion on May 13th (recording here), more chatter evolved around emus and camels, while our coalitions recommendations for the language on poultry has not been further discussed nor has the ask to include rabbits in the protection for poultry even come up in discussion - despite our recent testimony from May 6 (view written testimony here) on the bill and testimony received from a number of rabbit producers earlier this session.
Status Update: Version 4.1 that the House is has been reconsidering on Wednesday, May 13th, of H.941 would cap the number of chickens any non-commercial producer can raise to 6 hens (page 6 of the bill) - reversing the course of H.941 from a “right to grow” to a “statewide ban: of no more than 6 chickens.” The committee did not request legislative council to draft the recommendations of our coalition into legislation nor did they discuss our proposals for amendment specifically. Meanwhile, H.941 is currently the only bill moving forward that restores the municipal exemption for farming.
Our coalition — including Rural Vermont, NOFA-VT, the Vermont Farm Bureau, and others — recently shared recommendations with the House Agriculture Committee that now need public support (please follow our action alert below).
TAKE ACTION TODAY!
Please contact your House Representatives and ask them to support the coalition’s recommended improvements to H.941 before final passage (find your Representative here). H.941 is important because it restores the municipal exemption for farming, but it must also clearly protect Vermonters’ ability to grow food and raise livestock without excessive local zoning restrictions.
1. Ensure Towns Cannot Effectively Ban Livestock
Our top priority is adding clear language stating:
“No bylaw shall have the effect of prohibiting raising livestock.”
Without this protection, towns could effectively ban small-scale livestock farming — especially on properties under 4 acres or in village centers — undermining Vermont’s food resilience goals.
2. Restore the Study Committee on Small Farms and Homesteading
We support restoring a study committee to continue developing statewide standards that protect homestead-scale livestock farming, farmland access, and zoning reform.
3. Add Rabbits to Protected Food Animals
H.941 protects raising plants and poultry on a homestead scale. Rabbits should also be included because they are practical for small properties, commonly raised for food, and generally do not create nuisance issues.
We also oppose arbitrary municipal caps on animals, such as fixed chicken limits unrelated to land size or carrying capacity. The Senate just opposed an amendment (that would have not allowed homesteaders to raise more than six laying hens) on the floor. Let’s make sure the House does not consider arbitrary caps on animal numbers!
4. Remove the Cannabis Provision
Cannabis is already regulated under state law. H.941 should stay focused on food and farming issues, so references allowing additional municipal restrictions on cannabis cultivation should be removed.
5. Fully Fund the Land Access and Opportunity Board
Please support adding $1.6 million in one-time funding for the Land Access and Opportunity Board through S.278 to support farmland access, community engagement, and implementation of new responsibilities created this session.
Sample Message to Your Representative
Vermont’s food resilience depends on protecting small farms, homesteading, and local food production. Find your Representative here. You can use the following sample message to personalize and send:
Dear Representative,
I’m writing to ask you to support the recommended amendments from Rural Vermont and its agriculture and food system partners to H.941 that protect Vermonters’ right to grow food and raise livestock.
Please support language ensuring that no local bylaw can effectively prohibit raising livestock and restore the study committee on small farms and homesteading so Vermont can continue developing fair statewide standards for small livestock operations.
I also support including rabbits alongside the bill’s protections for poultry and oppose arbitrary municipal caps on animal numbers - please don’t make the mistake to write an ambiguous number such as no one should raise more than six chickens into law - that’s not what we envision when we ask to protect people’s ability to raise poultry and rabbits from arbitrary local zoning restrictions.
Please remove references to cannabis from H.941, since cannabis is already regulated under state law, and support adding $1.6 million in one-time funding for the Land Access and Opportunity Board through S.278.
These changes will strengthen Vermont’s food resilience, protect small farms and homesteaders, and support local food production. [Add here anything you would like to share about you, how you engage in the food system, and why it matters to you.]
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
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