Whether or not Vermont municipalities have a say in farming is being hashed out at the Legislature this session.
Last May, the Vermont Supreme Court granted towns and cities newfound authority to regulate farming through zoning bylaws.
The decision in 8 Taft Street DRB & NOV Appeals came over a dispute between the city of Essex Junction and Jason Struthers, a resident raising ducks and growing cannabis on his property. The city’s zoning regulations did not allow farming in the residential neighborhood, and neighbors complained.
Prior to the Supreme Court ruling, there was a broad legal understanding that farms regulated by state water quality rules — known as Required Agricultural Practices — were not also regulated by municipalities, said Steve Collier, an attorney with the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets. The rule applies to farms based on annual gross income, acreage and number of livestock, to name a few criteria.
“The idea is to have regulation, but to have it be consistent across the state and to have the Agency of Agriculture, which has expertise in farming, to be the principal state entity that's responsible for regulating these operations,” Collier said. “But if you're small enough that you're not farming as defined, then towns have the ability to also have regulations that apply.”
But the Taft Street decision said farming that meets criteria for oversight by the state RAPs rule, like Struthers’ cannabis and ducks, is not automatically exempt from regulation by towns and cities.
Farmers have since rallied to reinstate their protections against discontented neighbors.
“Regulation for farmers is already such a dizzying mess, and what it financially takes to be able to start a farm is already so crushingly prohibitive,” said Seren Dias, co-founder of Giant Journey Farm in Newfane and a board member for Rural Vermont, an organization that advocates for farmers. “So it really feels like a slap in the face.”
In response, the Senate Committee on Agriculture moved to clarify what towns can and can't control when it comes to farming, said Sen. Russ Ingalls, R-Essex, the committee chair.
The committee’s language, which essentially negates the Supreme Court ruling, recently passed the Senate.
“I just think it really reaffirms that as long as you are following required agricultural practices, you are defined as a farmer, and you're not polluting into the waters of the state, that you have protections as a farmer,” Ingalls said.
Ingalls worries that more lawsuits like the Essex Junction dispute would arise if the Supreme Court decision stands, especially among residents who aren’t used to the typical sights, sounds and smells of farming, he said.
The committee bill, S.323, also includes amendments to the RAPs rule that would increase the income threshold from $2,000 to $5,000, and clarify the acreage of farms subject to RAPs. It is now being reviewed by the House.
An effective reversal of the Taft Street decision would offer some solace to farmers anxious that they could be targets of ballooning regulations.
“Neighbors are arguing all the time about land access and land issues,” Dias said. “It's absolutely a guarantee that farms will go under just because their neighbor was annoyed.”
