Limited Scope of Agricultural and Cannabis Operations’ Exemption from Municipal Regulation under 24 V.S.A. § 4413(d)(1)(A) and 7 V.S.A. § 869(f)(2)

Introduction

This case arises from two consolidated appeals concerning the Town of Essex Junction’s attempt to enforce its Residential-1 zoning regulations against a landowner’s duck-raising and outdoor cannabis-cultivation operations. Neighbors Stephen and Sharon Wille Padnos challenged the zoning officer’s memorandum that asserted the City could not regulate these uses because they are “required agricultural practices” under state law. The landowner, Jason Struthers, farms ducks and eggs under a State “farm determination” and operates an outdoor Tier I cannabis grow through his company, Trichome VT, LLC. The Environmental Division granted summary judgment in favor of the landowner, holding that 24 V.S.A. § 4413(d)(1)(A) and 7 V.S.A. § 869(f)(2) exempt his operations from all municipal zoning controls. On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court reversed, clarifying the limited preemptive reach of these statutes.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Vermont, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Carroll, reversed the Environmental Division’s grant of summary judgment. The Court held that:

24 V.S.A. § 4413(d)(1)(A) preempts only the specific water-quality management standards (“required agricultural practices”) that the Secretary of Agriculture, Food and Markets has adopted in the Required Agricultural Practices (RAPs) Rule—it does not immunize all farming activities subject to the RAPs Rule from municipal zoning regulation.
7 V.S.A. § 869(f)(2) similarly preempts municipal regulation of licensed outdoor cannabis cultivators only “in the same manner” as § 4413(d)(1)(A) preempts required agricultural practices. Cannabis cultivators remain subject to local zoning except as to those identical RAPs standards.
The landowner’s duck-raising and outdoor cannabis-cultivation operations are therefore not wholly exempt from the City’s Residential-1 zoning ordinance; they may be regulated so long as the bylaws do not conflict with or duplicate the RAPs water-quality rules.

The case is remanded to the Environmental Division for further proceedings.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

In re Moore Accessory Structure Permit & Use (2013 VT 54): Discussed the definition of “farm structure” under § 4413(d)(2)(A) but did not interpret “required agricultural practices.”
In re Estate of Fitzsimmons (2013 VT 95): Clarified materiality standards on appeal.
Sutton v. Purzycki (2022 VT 56): Confirmed that appellate courts do not address immaterial facts.
Robes v. Town of Hartford (1993): Applied the rule that identical terms in statutes in pari materia carry the same meaning.
Baldauf v. Vermont State Treasurer (2021 VT 29): Reaffirmed that courts enforce unambiguous statutory text.

Legal Reasoning

The core issue was statutory interpretation of two preemption provisions:

24 V.S.A. § 4413(d)(1)(A) prohibits municipal bylaws from “regulat[ing] required agricultural practices, including the construction of farm structures, as those practices are defined by the Secretary of Agriculture, Food and Markets.”
7 V.S.A. § 869(f)(2) provides that licensed outdoor cannabis cultivators “shall not be regulated by a municipal bylaw … in the same manner that Required Agricultural Practices are not regulated by a municipal bylaw under 24 V.S.A. § 4413(d)(1)(A).”

The Court applied the traditional tools of interpretation:

Plain meaning: The term “required agricultural practices” tracks the definition in the RAPs Rule, which imposes specific water-quality management standards on certain farming operations, not all farming activities.
Avoiding surplusage: Reading § 4413(d)(1)(A) as exempting all farming under the RAPs Rule would render the word “required” meaningless and produce irrational results (e.g., a municipality could regulate farms of fourteen goats but not fifteen).
Statutory context: The Legislature’s objective in 6 V.S.A. § 4810 is to implement statewide water-quality standards; § 4413(d)(1)(A) simply prevents conflicting town bylaws.
Harmonizing related statutes: The cross-reference in 7 V.S.A. § 869(f)(2) must be read consistently with § 4413(d)(1)(A), limiting cannabis growers’ local exemptions to those same water-quality standards.

Impact

This decision provides guidance to municipalities, landowners, zoning officers, and the Vermont Agency of Agriculture:

Municipalities may continue to enforce zoning ordinances against farm and cannabis-cultivation uses, provided they do not conflict with the RAPs water-quality requirements.
Farmers and licensed outdoor cannabis cultivators remain subject to local land-use controls—such as setbacks, lot coverage limits, and animal-keeping restrictions—so long as those controls do not duplicate or conflict with the Secretary’s water-quality rules.
Zoning officers should perform a careful comparison of local regulations against the RAPs Rule when evaluating preemption claims.
The ruling may reduce future litigation by clarifying that the state’s water-quality program and municipal zoning serve distinct but complementary regulatory roles.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Required Agricultural Practices (RAPs Rule): A set of water-quality management rules, adopted by the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets, that impose specific conditions on farms (e.g., manure storage, buffer zones, livestock access) to prevent pollution of Vermont’s rivers and groundwater.
Municipal Bylaw Preemption: The principle that, under certain state laws, local governments cannot adopt regulations that conflict with or duplicate state-mandated standards. Here, state law says towns cannot “regulate” (i.e., govern by rule) the RAPs standards themselves—but they can regulate other aspects of farming and cannabis cultivation.
Summary Judgment (V.R.C.P. 56): A procedural device for disposing of cases where there are no disputed material facts and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Supreme Court reviews such rulings “de novo,” applying the same legal standard as the lower court.

Conclusion

The Vermont Supreme Court’s decision narrows the preemptive reach of both 24 V.S.A. § 4413(d)(1)(A) and 7 V.S.A. § 869(f)(2). Only the specific, water-quality management practices defined by the Secretary in the RAPs Rule are beyond municipal zoning control. Farming activities subject to the RAPs and licensed outdoor cannabis cultivation remain otherwise open to local regulation. This ruling reaffirms the Legislature’s balance between statewide environmental goals and local land-use autonomy.